Category Archives: gun control

Creating the enemy

Last year, TZP posted a poll, Would military personnel deploy nuclear weapons?.

“As a military servicemember, would you exercise illegal force against American civilians to enforce an “assault weapon” ban?”

Commenting continues, and two individuals debated military intervention.

One said that military personnel might be willing to act against civilians.

“It can’t happen here!” Go to Sand Creek and tell that to the tormented spirits there. (The 154th anniversary is a mere ten days away.)

The Sand Creek Massacre was an action by the United States Volunteers in which as many as 500 Cheyenne and Arapaho were slaughtered, mostly women and children.

Another commenter noted that Sand Creek was a poor analogy to confiscating firearms from Americans.

Sand Creek was done by militia, with about as much training as we give a first-year JROTC cadet (freshman in high school) today, if that. And they were NOT attacking their own people: they were attacking “savages” who were considered even less human by the average gold miner or saloon bum than them darkie slaves down South in 1864.

Give that man a cigar: “they were NOT attacking their own people: they were attacking “savages” who were considered even less human.”

One reason I hope/suspect that a majority of military personnel would decline to participate in Presedential-hopeful Eric “Duke Nukem” Swalwell’s wetdream of deploying troops and nuclear weapons against gun owners is that we aren’t outsiders like those Native Americans were to the murderous militia in 1864.

Yet.

But victim-disarmers are working on it. They are working to demonize honest gun owners.

Lunatic Bernie Sanders supporter — but I repeat myself — attempts to assassinate Republicans? It’s the VNRA’s fault.

Sheriff, school system, and FBI let a known criminal shoot up a school? Gun owners want dead children.

Demonization isn’t enough. They need to eradicate any positive depiction of gun ownership, leaving only criminal violence. If you only ever hear about criminal misuse, of course you’ll think that’s the only use.

So Democrats shut Steve Scalise out of their gun control hearing, allowing only victim-disarmers to testify.

Facebook essentially bans any positive mention of guns. You can’t even advertise a gun safe, because it wouldn’t do for folks to realize that honest gun owners are actually interested in properly storing firearms (not “safe storage, which is code for “successfully disarmed”). “Everyone knows” that gun owners are irresponsible rednecks who have to be forced to be safe.

But if you really want to eradicate the “gun culture,” you have to make it a crime for children to post pictures of themselves with firearms, BB guns, or toy guns. Expunge any evidence of the idea that responsible firearm handling, and family tradition, is even possible. Don’t let kids see their friends having fun with anything gun-like. “Pictures, or it didn’t happen” takes on a whole meaning.

Another way of making gun owners look bad is to make us look out-of-sync with other Americans. Polls and surveys. The classic “90% of real Americans want universal background check,” when no public referendum has actually cracked 60% even where it has passed.

Some years back, the University of North Massachusetts New Hampshire claimed a survey of NH residents showed 96% percent. That seemed unlikely so people asked to see the raw polling data. UNH refused to share it. I was unable to locate anyone — pro- or anti-RKBA — who admitted to participating in the survey.

And in the next election, voters ousted the Democrats who tried to impose UBCs. Fake data, to convince people that gun owners are just wrong.

Sometimes the polling data is so obviously fake as to be laughable. Pew(ie) Research did a survey that purported to show that the VNRA has 14,125,392 members, more than half of whom want UBCs. That’s just 2.35 times as many as the VNRA’s most inflated claim.

But the lies stayed out there, serving the purpose.

Worse yet, are the claims that gun owners are actively meddling to prevent “making this a safer state.”. Gun owners are an active danger to everyone else, see?

The message: Gun owners must just be a few strange, dangerously weird people if they oppose common sense and safety. Gun owners aren’t like real people. They don’t matter.

It’s working. Thus a college professor was astonished to discover…

What about those close to me? I took an informal family poll that left me reeling. I learned my relatives have guns. They store weapons in hidden chambers inside homes where we gather; they possess permits to carry concealed weapons and take target practice; they have friends who bring guns to church in case the congregation should need shielding; they are prepared to “protect my family no matter who comes through the door” and readying themselves for a “major environmental act.”

Gun owners are so marginalized that this woman was shocked to discover her own family had guns. For sensible reasons. Only white oppressors (and gangbangers and other murderers) have guns. To think otherwise leaves her “reeling.”

At least she was only left stunned. The “gun owners aren’t human” indoctrination has taken so strongly in others that they openly advocate or plan to kill people. The Washington punk who threatened to kill sheriffs to enforce gun control. Alison Airies, who wants summary public executions. Gun controllers SWATting gun owners. An anti-gun activist threatening to kill pro-gun people, including a legislator, in a hearing (and note that she was only ejected, not arrested… because threatening evil gun people’s live doesn’t warrant arrest anymore).

Second Amendment supporters are just “terrorists” to be doxxed.

Representative Duke Nukem’s threat was neither hyberbole nor joke. It was trial balloon to determine if the marginalization of gun owners was complete yet, to the point that they can begin to “Sand Creek” us.

Jews have experienced this before. Jewish gun owners should expect the worst.

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

FAABS: Yet another blockchain gun registration scam

This one is called FAABS – Firearm Accountability Auditability Blockchain Solution.

The net result is a first time ever Win-Win for both sides. Gun control advocates will get a robust, comprehensive system that closes all the loopholes far more effectively than universal background checks. Gun rights advocates get a system that doesn’t infringe upon their rights. Everyone gets a process that stems the flow of firearms into the hands of those who should not have them, which dramatically reduces gun misuse and lowers the political controversy.

All things for all people. Sure.

If you don’t understand the basics of blockchains, here’s an introduction. The TL;DR is that a blockchain is a decentralized database that permanent tracks entry of data and changes to the data. You’re likely slightly familiar with Bitcoin, which uses the technology. It was supposed to protect privacy, and prevent “counterfeiting” of the electronic cash. Some folks liked it because transactions were private even from the IRS.

In fact, FAABS is firearms registration.

Police will use the serial number of the confiscated firearm to initiate a request on FAABS. Since the original owner on all firearms on FAABS is the government entity with the highest authority (very likely the ATF), the request will be made to the ATF.

And there’s the first problem. To enter your firearm into the FAABS blockchain database, you have to report your possession of the firearm to the ATF. And we all know we can trust the ATF to not keep a copy of the application in their own little database.

FAABS is reliant on the transition of the FBI from doing reactive, point of transfer background checks to doing pre-emptive, daily license status suspensions and reinstatements.

Ah, so there’s also an FBI database of gun owners linked to FAABS. Owner registration.

The government cannot find out how many or what guns anyone owns without the willing cooperation of the owner.

That’s funny. The author claims that’s because the police would need a barcode freely offered by the owner in order to access the firearm record. But once a day, that FBI database is going to update the blockchain record of each firearm tied to that owner… which means they know how many guns (and what kind) each person owns.

Sure, if the government doesn’t keep any of those records, you’re safe. Right?

That’s what those folks who thought Bitcoin could hide their holdings from the IRS believed. I never did.

New Bitcoins are generated by “mining.” Mining is actually computers running verification checks on the blockchain; errors in blockchain copies, making sure the latest transactions are correct, reconciling multiple copies of the blockchain. It takes a fair bit of computing power, so the folks doing it are compensated with a Bitcoin for a certain amount of work. The tricky part is that miners — who can be anyone — now have the entire blockchain at their disposal. I saw no reason the government couldn’t set up as a miner to get that information, then instead of mining, run an analysis on the data to see who had what funds.

Guess what. The IRS has been doing just that since at least 2015. The company Chainalysis is dedicated to analyzing blockchains and ferreting out data.

So even if the ATF, for the first time in its existence was honest and followed the rules this time, and didn’t keep registration records… they don’t need to, because all they have to do is a blockchain analysis.

To use FAABS requires the gullible to download a smartphone app — no doubt from the ATF web site — to their personal tracking device, readily identifiable to the owner. By merely downloading the app, you’d identify yourself to the ATF as a gun owner. I’m sure we can trust them not to save that information either.

Hmm. Does the app handle multiple firearms per owner? Does it have a list to choose from when that cop demands you prove you’re the owner? Is the list encrypted and password protected?

And I’m sure it would never occur to the feds to code their FAABS app to do other things, like sending unencrypted data to a third party (other than the buyer and seller)… like the ATF.

The only upside to that is that the ATF is very, very bad at tracking stuff.

As is the case with every gun control proposal, FAABS also fails to address the existing black market in firearms, which is the source of more than half of firearms used in crimes (and nearly all the rest from other channels that avoid background checks). Once again, we have a scam meant to lull honest people into trusting the government with a firearm and owner registry, while leaving the criminals conveniently armed.

Oh, hell no.

Honest gun owners, who typically own guns as protection from bad guys, have a personal, vested interest in not providing guns to bad guys. But looking at confiscation schemes in multiple states, we also have an interest in not being tracked. The simplest way to achieve both would be a toll-free number; enter the buyer’s SSAN, DOB, and last name. Get back an automated yes/no, and a confirmation number which the anonymous seller keeps in case the cops come calling.

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

International Women’s Day

So International Women’s Day was a few days ago. This international woman spent it working.

I had a conversation with a girl friend recently. She said her boyfriend teases her about being a “manly woman” because she is able to do all kinds of things for herself without asking the help of a big strong man. I guess he thinks that would be him, snerk. Since I’m about 12 years older than she is I told her back in the 70s or so, that was called being a feminist. You could grow up to be whatever you wanted to be. Women became lawyers instead of the legal secretary, they became doctors instead of the nurse, they started becoming fire fighters and paramedics. Now when it comes to farming, the women have often, probably usually, worked as hard as the men. So really, the feminists were a bit behind the times there. But in general, it was more of a opening up of career choices. I still remember a interview with Stefanie Powers in which she talked about being with William Holden because she loved him and chose to be, not because she “needed” him. There were female police officers, female investigators and they carried guns, used them and it was part of the job.

My my, how feminism has deteriorated. As has the Demoncratic party, the party of “tolerance” as long as you agree with them. The party of “diversity”, as long as you hold all the opinions they tell you to. The party of “freedom”, as long as you are content with the scraps they are willing to let you keep. A few years ago when I wrote for another group it was gently suggested to me that I quit chewing up demoncrats and spitting them out in my columns. I was astonished. They are tasty with BBQ sauce, and besides, I could see what they were becoming. To be a demoncrat you have to sign on to their party platform. Which means you must be in favor of defenseless citizens. A demoncratic candidate may tell you they “support the Second Amendment” and maybe they do. But if they have any hopes of any committee appointments or advancement within the party, or support of the party, they will tow the line.

It’s a upside down kind of thing. President Trump is accused of being a misogynist and yet Trump’s Pick to Lead the Office of Violence Against Women Believes Guns Can Reduce Domestic Violence

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of Violence Against Women believes that arming women in domestic violence situations is key to their safety, despite experts’ warnings that the introduction of guns into abusive relationships can imperil victims.

Shannon Lee Goessling, a former Florida prosecutor, has argued that women in domestic violence situations should take up arms against their abusers.

Perhaps President Trump doesn’t fully grasp the concept of being a misogynist?

In Indiana in 2017 there were two bills in the house on guns. One would allow a woman to use a useless order of protection as a instant permit to get a handgun. Perhaps Indiana didn’t want to be known like New Jersey is for killing a innocent woman named Carole Bowne.

Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.

More recently there was a group of male legislators in New Hampshire that wore pearls to a hearing on confiscate guns first ask questions later “Red Flag” laws. A group of harpies lead by astro-turfer Shannon T.Watts were “outraged”, upset, angst ridden, miffed, full blown hissy fit pitching over it. Then a bit more came to light. Far from being anti-women or mocking towards women, these men had the audacity to believe that all people have rights. You don’t take things away from people because you don’t like the things they have. Unless you’re Mikey Bloomberg and it’s a 32 oz. Soda pop. Then you do. But gun rights activist Kimberly Morin of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire set the record straight.

Online, members of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, a pro-guns organization, have said Watts and other Moms Demand Action members have it all wrong: the pearls symbolize opposition to the bill itself and support for the Second Amendment and the Women’s Defense League — support for women, not denigration of them.

“The PEARLS are in support of the Women’s Defense League. Women who ACTUALLY PROMOTE GUN SAFETY and WOMEN’S RIGHTS,” tweeted Kimberly Morin, president of the group.

Morin told a local newspaper that they’ve been wearing pearls for this reason since 2016. She accused Watts, who lives in Colorado, of being an out-of-state “paid hack” who is lobbying for gun control legislation from afar and whose group doesn’t understand local politics. In a day-long Twitter offensive, Morin also called the Moms Demand Action volunteers “harpies,” a reference to a creature from Greek mythology that had the body of a bird and the head of a human woman.

The harpies of course, don’t think women should have the chance to choose which defensive tool they can wield to their best advantage in being safe. Boy howdy, that’s some “open-minded” isn’t it?

Speaking of open minded, the Occasional-Cortex has chimed in on the gun control debate. Being the good little socialist-communist she is, she is keeping a “list” of her enemies and harangued the Demoncrats that didn’t vote lock step on gun control as San Fran Nan wanted. Occasional-Cortex apparently can’t read about what is going on in Venezuela these days. But considering she’s a “Post Turtle” and how she got where she is, hardly shocking. She won an audition…..

Which probably explains why she thinks her “Green new/raw deal” is great.

The Occasional-Cortex speaks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only is she arrogant, she’s easily led. From the founder of Greenpeace believe it or not.

Demoncrats were once a time thought of as the party of Jews. As demoncrats celebrate their incredible diversity with the addition of 3 antisemitic women it is becoming ever more obvious, they never were in the first place. Its the new position of the left, and it’s not just an American phenomena. Democrats’ Support for Israel in Rapid Decline. Israel, the one and only Jewish state in the world. The left has no problem with the many muslim states (including Franceistan, Germanyistan, Swedenistan and Englandistan) only the one Jewish state it seems. One of these things is not like the other?

But hey, they’re women, and now they’re powerful, so celebrate right? Sexist much?

The media and the demoncratic party excuse and cover up the antisemitism. Dear Rep. Ilhan Omar, Do Not Gaslight Us Jews even the Daily Freir chimed in. They are a humor site, in case you didn’t know. Pelosi restricts Ilhan Omar to just one anti-Jewish tweet per week.

But hey, she’s a woman, and a muslim, and new, and fresh so content of character is not important and will not be considered.

And all these women are hell bent on leaving other women at the mercy of abusers, known and unknown to them.

Woman tells 9-1-1 dispatcher she shot a man who wouldn’t leave her home

The daughter told the emergency dispatcher the man was hitting her mother and was trying to shoot her mother. The woman took the phone from her daughter and related what happened.

“I asked him to leave,” she said to the emergency dispatcher. “He will not put his hands on me or my children. He’s still in my house. I tried to do this nicely.”

When the dispatcher asked the woman whether she shot the man, the woman said, “Yes ma’am, I did…. He needs an ambulance.”

What happened to “If it saves just one life”? Was that mother’s life not important? The children’s lives not important?

I ask you, what in all that above is cause to celebrate anything about International Women’s Day? Well, excepting Kimberly Morin. These women have done nothing good, noble or even mildly helpful! Where is the feminism in putting other women in a position where they are less secure and able to defend themselves? Ok, they’re women, so what?

I say if we’re going to celebrate women’s day, that we have models of good, courageous, noble women to hold up. Not just some flotsam or jetsam that someone tripped over. So I’ll give you some amazing women.

18 Incredibly Brave Jewish Women

And then there’s this woman. Lepa Radić.

17-year-old Lepa Radić was a Bosnian Serb who fought with the partisans during WWII but never got to see the Nazis lose the war. In February 1943, Lepa was captured. The Nazis tied a rope around her neck but offered her a way out. All she has to do is reveal her comrades’ and leaders’ identities.
Lepa responded:
“You will know them when they come to avenge me.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMAZING: #Kurdish female soldiers dancing in #Raqqa after defeating ISIS, on streets where #ISIS bought and sold women. A great video!

https://twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1104290725175455744

You know, ISIS, Omar’s buddies?

These kinds of women, now these women deserve celebrating and being remembered!

I’m not all that crazy about “Women’s Day”. I think there are fine and noble people of both genders that should be celebrated. The idea of celebrating people just because they are women regardless of how they act as humans bothers me. Perhaps when they have “International Men’s Day” I’ll rethink the issue. Feminism has become a perverse image of what it was supposed to have been. Instead of truly empowering women, it strives to weaken them, to instill a victim mindset. The left’s idea of power is wearing a stupid pink hat with ears or a hashtag. Geez. Maybe I’m just cranky and need to spend some time with my emotional support animal.

My Emotional Support Animal
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The CDC is lying to you

I’ve mentioned the problem with highly variable firearm homicides numbers in the FBI UCR vs. the CDC’s WISQARS. For 2017, the UCR claims 10,982 firearms homicides, while the CDC says 14,542, 32% higher. Part of that is reporting.

The UCR is based on reported numbers from law enforcement agencies. But not all report.

The CDC, though…

The CDC numbers are based on emergency department reports, using ICD-10 codes. But, like the FBI, they don’t…use data from every hospital. In fact, they pick out just 60 hospitals and use their reports as a proxy for the country. It’s rather like Rasmussen pseudo-randomly surveying 1,000 people in hopes of picking a representative sample of all Americans, and extrapolating from there.

And that’s a huge problem.

If more of the sample hospitals are in places like Chicago, Saint Louis, or Baltimore, it skews the results, because those locations have a disproportionate number of firearms homicides compared to Alamogordo, New Mexico. If you assume everywhere has a firearms homicide rate like Baltimore, you’re going to extrapolate an unrealistically high number. Maybe even 32% higher than what the FBI says.

Problem, right?

I’ve barely started.

First, a 60 hospital sample is ridiculous when there are 6,210 hospitals in the US.

CDC samples fewer than 1% of hospitals.

Second, there is no good reason to do a 60 hospital sample. Or a 600 hospital sample.

To comply with the federal HIPAA law, since October 1, 2015, every HIPAA-covered entity — every hospital — in the nation reports every single gunshot wound, by ICD-10 code, to the government. All 6,210. For Every. Single. Patient. ICD-10 is just the latest iteration. They have been collecting this data for years.

The CDC doesn’t need to sample, then guess at the total number. The total number for every hospital in the country is already at their disposal. At most, they might have to make extremely minor adjustments for occasional coding errors. But since Medicare/Medicaid and insurance payments are based on the reported codes, the existing system already checks for coding errors. Damned few should slip past insurance companies dead set on paying out the least they can.

In fact, they have more data than just “gunshot injury.” ICD-10 breaks it down by intent (accidental/self, accidental/other, suicide, homicide) and weapon (machinegun, rifle, shotgun, handgun, other). There is a separate code for each possible combination. More codes if multiple weapons. More codes for where on the body the injury is. The admission data (which they get) includes age, race (with more choices than the 6 given in WISQARS), gender. They have the hospital location for geographic distribution of injuries.

And it isn’t just fatal injury, all those code options are there for nonfatal injuries.

With the available data, the CDC can sort for “white males, 18-24, shot in lower back, in Kalamazoo, fatal and non-fatal” and give you the exact numbers.

I’ve played with the WHO ICD database, and the available data is amazing.

So why isn’t the CDC simply using the raw data, instead of sampling and extrapolating? Is it too difficult to get to get the data for research purposes?

No. ICD is designed for researchers to use, by intent. Medical people hate it because — to make any possible injury/illness in which a researcher might someday be interested — there are upwards of 150,000 different codes to choose from; want to know how many people are bitten by large dogs vs. small; it’s there.

There’s only one reason for the CDC to forego using the entire database as intended, and cherry-pick a handful of “representative” hospitals.

Because the raw data doesn’t support the laws the victim-disarming gun controllers want.

The raw data would tell us who is getting shot. With what. What the victims’ demographic and geographic distribution is. Combined with the UCR, it would tell gun controllers which criminals to target, and how. All the things the CDC pretends it can’t do.

The CDC has to lie about injury reports to rationalize targeting honesty gun owners who don’t commit the crimes.

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

Hawaii: That’s not something you see every day

Some Hawaiian legislators have entered a most interesting bill.

Measure Title: URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AND ADOPT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO CLARIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Stripped to basics, it calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment, under the guise of “clarification.” Because…

“WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment RENDERS PROHIBITORY AND RESTRICTIVE REGULATION PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL” (emphasis added)

Their argument is that the individual rights “theory” currently — and correctly — held by the Supreme Court makes all their gun control victim-disarming people control laws unconstitutional.

No kidding. All else aside, you’d think they’d have noticed the separate usage of “people” (when talking about… people) and “states” and “congress” in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps they’re public school graduates and were unaware that the first ten amendments were proposed and adopted as a single document.

I was also amused by their claim that the MILLER case declared the Second Amendment to be a collective right. Yep, gotta be public school victims.

No. What MILLER did was merely say that in the absence of evidence that sawed-off shotguns are useful militarily, they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

In fact, in describing militias, the Court specified that it is composed of individual civilians called up for service (and carefully differentiated the militia from government “troops” in regular service). What’s more, those called up for militia service are expected to appear with their own personal weapons. Which, by necessity, they’d have to own before and separately from militia service.

That’s about as individual as it gets. And a strict read of MILLER suggests that those in the militia could be required to own military-grade firearms. (I don’t go that far, but only maintain they must be able to acquire them in time for a call-up.)

The collective right theory of the Second Amendment is a relatively recent invention of gun controllers. It has never been held by the Supreme Court, which always recognized it as a right of individual people. It even factored into the infamous Dred Scott case in 1856, with the majority maintaining that if Scott were recognized as a citizen then he — as an individual — would have the right to bear arms and all other enumerated rights.

I very much hope Hawaii passes this bill. Imagine anyone busted for breaking the state’s gun laws walking into court and declaring, “Your Honor, even the State says this is unconstitutional.”

Ah, but so long as we’re talking about MILLER…

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

TL;DR: Short-barreled shotguns can be regulated under the National Firearms Act because they weren’t shown to be suitable for military use.

I believe that is why the Supreme Court has never granted certiorari for a direct challenge to the NFA since MILLER. NFA items, under that ruling, are things that are not used by the military. Except… machineguns certainly are. And gun controllers whine about “military-grade” or “military-style” “assault weapons.” SCOTUS doesn’t really want to touch that.

Which is probably why the Court keeps granting extensions on the petition for cert in the Kettler NFA challenge. Their cert decision was due in February; they granted two extensions, making it — so far — due by April 22, 2019.

 

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

Looks like a declaration of war: H.R. 1263

“A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.”

H.R. 1263 was filed a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been checking congress.gov daily for the text, since the devil is always hiding in the little details. And, frankly, just making nearly every semiautomatic rifle an NFA item already sounds pretty bad.

Any semiauto that takes a detachable magazine — which is anything but .22 rimfire fixed tube magazines — would become an NFA item. That isn’t even the truly bad part.

Here you go:

(b) Applicability.—Any person who, on the date of the enactment of this Act, lawfully owns or possesses a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun (as defined in section 5845(a) of such Code, as amended by this Act) that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device (as defined in such section) shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, register the semiautomatic rifle or shotgun in accordance with section 5841 of such Code. Such registration shall become a part of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record required to be maintained by such section. The prohibition on possession of an unregistered firearm under section 5861 of such Code shall not apply to possession of such a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that has the capacity to accept such a detachable ammunition feeding device on any date that is 120 days or less after the enactment of this Act.

“Register.” Not apply to register. You need a tax stamp within 120 days of enactment. No stamp after the magical date and you’re a felon.

Good luck with that.

It’s currently taking a minimum of 227 days to receive the stamp. That is, it’s taking three months longer than this bill would allow. With existing NFA firearms.

Now throw in Ghu only knows how many millions of newly declared NFA rifles, and the waiting period for approval is going to shoot up into the decades at best.

There are 175,977 transferable machineguns registered now, and it takes better than 7 months to get a stamp. Throw in an estimated 16 million semiauto AR- and AK-pattern rifles into the mix and you’ll have 92 times as many for 92 times the wait, 644 months (I rounded). It’ll take almost 54 years to get your stamp.

Well, longer. I only added ARs and AKs; hardly the only semiauto rifles out there.

Rep. Douche did not set that 120 day limit by mistake. He deliberately crafted a law designed to be absolutely impossible to comply with, even if you were so inclined.

This bill will make it through the Democrat socialist-controlled House. It probably won’t make it through the coward-controlled Senate, but given my own Senator’s lust for shredding the Second Amendment, I’m not sure enough of that to bet.

If it does, it is an outright declaration of war.

 

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

Trampling Your Rights, While Missing the Supposed Target

HR 1112, the so-called “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,” just passed the House as expected.

If you haven’t been keeping up, this one was billed as closing what Demoscum Rep. Jim Clyburn calls the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston shooter bought a gun while awaiting trial on a misdemeanor drug charge. A clerical error directed the NICS examiner to the wrong police department when he tried to clarify the charge. As a result, it took longer than the allowed 3 days, and the sale went as a default proceed. CLieburn claims extending the NICS period to 10 days would fix that.

As I said: CLIEburn. He lied. Let’s review some history.

On February 28, 2015, the Charleston asshole was arrested on a misdemeanor drug charge.

He purchased his handgun on April 11, 8 days after his 21st birthday. As noted, the NICS check was delayed.

On June 17, he murdered a bunch of kindly, innocent people who had welcomed him.

During the post-shooting investigation, authorities began to wonder if his arrest should have caused a NICS denial.

Roughly a week after the shooting, “examiners officially denied the Roof application.”

The killer’s NICS denial didn’t take 10 days. It took 74 days to figure maybe he should flunk the NICS check. For arithmetically-challenged congresscreeps, 74 is more than 10. Even with this extension, the chumbucket’s sale would have proceeded.

No preemptively-prove-your-innocence check is going to work, if the people running it won’t do their jobs until after people die.

But here’s the thing: NICS should have approve the sale anyway. The scumbag hadn’t been convicted on that drug charge; the case was still pending. The charge was a misdemeanor, not the felony indictment that makes one prohibited to purchase. And that arrest was apparently his only drug bust, so there weren’t “multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years,” as called for in 27 CFR § 478.11 Meaning of terms.

Probably that’s why Chum-boy bought the gun when he did. He was finally 21 and wanted to get it before the conviction.

So once again, they’re pushing a law to allegedly fix a crime problem, but targeting innocent people. Infringements based upon lie.

“High capacity” magazine bans because Parkland (he used politically correct 10-rounders).

“Assault weapon” bans because Santa Fe (he used a pump shotgun and a revolver).

Universal background checks because Mandalay Bay (he passed background checks).

Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Third time is enemy action. This is an — as yet — undeclared war.

 

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

“Do you know the way…”

Out of San Jose?

San Jose leaders propose tougher gun laws
“We’ve seen enough studies demonstrating straw purchasing are endemic particularly among gangs that are purchasing guns, often from gang members who don’t have a prior record,” said Liccardo.

But Liccardo cited national statistics showing about half of all guns used in crimes were purchased illegally – leading to community heartache.

Wait. I think he’s citing Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 which does say 43.2% of crime guns are purchased illegally.

On the black market.

Straw purchases might be as high as 10.8%, but since retail sources accounted for just 7.5%, it seems unlikely.

The mayor is proposing four amendments to the city’s existing gun ordinances. He’ll require video and audio recording of all gun sales in shops, for access by police if needed;

If he’s planning to record “about half of all guns used in crimes […] purchased illegally,” he has to require black market dealers to do recordings. No doubt the costs of compliance will drive them out of business.

prohibit the sale of guns and ammunition within a residence;

That’s already the case in California.

require a license for the sale or transfer of all concealable firearms;

Again, that’s current law.

On the one hand, it’s good to see them waste resources on stupidity that merely duplicates existing laws, instead of imposing new human/civil rights violations. On the other hand, they’re still directing their attention at the wrong target… if this were actually about reducing crime. But this is a state that actively invites and protects criminals, and releases the ones who were stupid enough to be jailed at all. Of course they want to disarm the preferred prey of their real constituency.

On the gripping hand, we have this.

and display information about local gun laws, and post suicide warning signs and prevention programs.

California legalized assisted suicide. But only if you pay a doctor (you know, the “this is our lane” victim disarmers, the folks who kill at least 6.25 times as many people as die by gunfire). Fortunately, I already prepared suitable signs.

king-county-suicide

They’ll just have to change the law reference to California Health and Safety Code PART 1.85 – End of Life Option Act.

If you are sane, but still in San Jose, get out. Get out of California.

 

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

Let’s Ex Parte!

Ah, the fad for Extreme Risk Ex Parte Protective orders. You know, I shall henceforth refer to them as EPPOs.

Supposedly, these are to get guns out the hands of “dangerous” people, but the fact is that every state already has laws — for years — that allow that. The only thing EPPOs “add” is stripping away due process, through ex parte “star chamber” proceedings with the subject not even being aware of the accusation until the cops show up to steal his property. That’s the point.

Besides ex parte proceedings stripping away human/civil rights being morally repugnant, that don’t meet the federal definition of due process, which requires a hearing with the accused before the rights-stripping. (You hear that, NRA?)

So yes, I oppose EPPOs. But allow me to make a little suggestion. This isn’t actually being offered as a compromise, just a thought experiment to see how the victim-disarmers react. Let’s modify the basic “ERPO.”


The individual applying for an EPPO shall, in addition to any court/filing fees, post a $10,000 bond.

When the ex parte hearing is held, the judge shall either issue the order or deny it.

  • If the order is denied, $5,000 of the bond will be delivered to the subject of the EPPO application, in restitution for the attempted infringement of the subject’s rights. The subject will be informed of the denied application and the identity of the accuser.
  • If the order is issued, $10,000 will be delivered to the subject when the police remove the firearms.

If the order is issued, the after-the-fact appeal better-late-than-never-due-process hearing will be heard by a judge other than the judge who issued the order, who has no conflict of interest in case.

If that judge does not uphold the original order, the first judge who issued the order will be suspended from the bench without pay and criminally charged under 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law. A civil judgement will be entered against the offending judge ordering him to pay the subject of the order $10,000.

In any case, the subject of the order keeps the original $10,000 in restitution for the rights-violation which occurred before he had a hearing. No shall the subject of the order incur any court costs, filing fees, or fines; and all of the subject’s legal expenses will be borne by the party who applied for the rights-violation.

None of the restitution paid to the subject in this process shall be construed as disallowing additional compensation awarded through other civil or criminal proceedings.


OK, victim-disarmers. Put up or shut up. Is it your goal to protect people from themselves, or to make cheap, anonymous SWATting of gun owners legal?

 

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

This is why the people must be armed

“The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.”
James Madison, The Federalist #46

You want to see tyranny? We got your tyranny.

The Green Raw Deal.

Ocasio-Cortez may be backtracking and trying to disavow her too-truthful “FAQ,” but it was published on her own site and the metadata lists Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, as the author. The FAQ is consistent with the House Resolution she also published. The FAQ is simply a little blunter in stating their end goals.

If implemented, the GRD would fund the enslavement of the nation through hyperinflation. You would work for the government, or in whatever remaining government-approved jobs might survive her purge. You would live in approved government housing, subsisting on a vegetarian diet for as long as the food held out. Not long, since the nation’s power infrastructure would be gutted. But you might freeze to death in the winter first, as the wind gennie-powered electric heaters sit idle.

What land isn’t needed for “renewable energy” factories spewing out corrosive, toxic sludge that would horrify even the Chinese would be “afforested.”

Ocasio-Cortez and her merry band of psychopathic slavers have a plan for us that makes Ayn Rand’s Anthem look bright and cheery.

Of course the left-wing greenweenies want to disarm us. They learned that much of a lesson from Venezuela. And Stalin.

Compliance rates with their little registration and turn-in programs are already laughable. Do they expect better compliance now that they’ve explicity told what they mean to do to us?

I think not.

 

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