Category Archives: authoritarian swine

[Update] Red Flag Orders: Weasel-wording from the VNRA

See below, for more hypocrisy.


No, for once, I’m not going to talk about bump-fire stocks (anyone who doesn’t understand that problem by now can’t, or won’t, comprehend it).

Let’s talk about ERPOs. And the Vichy NRA.

Call them extreme risk protective orders, red flag orders, gun violence protection orders, or what have you, they had been floated for years, but became particularly popular after the Parkland school shooting. Rather irrationally, since the local, state, and federal authorities had plenty of time and warnings to stop the murder before he escalated to the deaths of humans (per reports, he’d been killing animals for years). The point was to deflect attention from their own failures. If only we’d had ERPOs (in addition to unused protective orders, unused Baker Act, unused arrests/indictments/convictions for what he’d already done, maybe even ignored prohibited person status), we could have stopped him.

Of course, the VNRA was blamed, too. So the VNRA had to put up their own deflector shields. They jumped on the ERPO bandwagon. Yeah, red flag laws are a great idea!

And the knowledgeable gun community — for once — exploded.

ERPOs have a little constitutional and moral problem.

I’m going to generalize, because the specifics vary from state to state. Getting a regular protective order is relatively easy. The person who thinks they may be threatened goes to a judge and asks for an order keeping the accused away from them. The court sets a hearing date. Parties involved show up and speak their piece. The judge decides if the order is justified, and if so issues it. He may set special conditions: some monitored contact, maybe zero contact, no threats, if he sees a particular danger he may order the accused to turn in any firearms he possesses. And with the order in place, he cannot lawfully obtain another firearm.

Whoa. Wait. Full stop. I’ll bet newcomers to this thought newly empowering judges to take those guns was the point of ERPOs. Victim disarmament advocates — like the mainstream media — have certainly done their best to convey that impression. But, generally, judges already have that power.

Though adjudication, a hearing in which the accused has the chance to defend himself before hand.

ERPO laws don’t change add that power. What they do change is:

  • The accused doesn’t get the chance to defend himself. He isn’t even told of any hearing before his firearms are taken.
  • The claim that the accused is dangerous doesn’t have to come from anyone who feels threatened. In fact, as some laws have been written, the accused and accuser need never have met. The accused might not even know of the accuser’s existence

The first a person has any idea that he’s been accused may be when the police show up to kill him. Some people call that SWATting. I do.

ERPOs have even been executed against people who aren’t accused of being “dangerous” (they took firearms from an innocent third party because the accused thought he might be able to steal guns from him; might, not “could”).

That is what ERPOs are. And that is what the VNRA endorsed. Initially.

When gun owners (and even the ACLU) noted due process problem with ex parte proceedings, and the whole “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” thing, the VNRA backed off. Oh, no! What we MEANT was that we back ERPOs with due process.

Specifically, the VNRA said:

Just in case they decide to retroactively edit reality, here’s a screencap showing their support for ex parte proceedings.
  • Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
  • A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.

Make up your minds, VNRA. Stop weasel-wording on the issue. Would the VNRA allow ex parte (the accused not given the opportunity to participate) hearings or not?

Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights. We will only support an ERPO process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time.

Due process is defined in 5 U.S. Code § 554 – Adjudications. It requires the subject to be informed of the hearing before it is held. That excludes any ex parte action.

And yet, the VNRA is still (as of January 8, 2019) allowing for ex parte hearings with no due process.

If the VNRA wants due process hearings for protection orders, then “red flag” ERPOs are exactly what they should oppose.

Smart people — which seems to exclude VNRA “leadership” — understand that. The framers of the Constitution certainly did.

Article 1, Section 9
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

What’s a Bill of Attainder?

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs)
[…]
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to due process, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the separation of powers.

No trial: Check.

Nullifies civil rights: First Amendment rights to speak in a hearing denied, Second Amendment rights to firearm denied. Check.

Takes property: Check.

Heck; 4A, 5A, 6A, and 9A gone. Check.

The VNRA officially supports unconstitutional Bills of Attainder which strip anonymously accused people of their rights and property with no due process.

The Vichy NRA officially supports Star Chamber-ordered SWATting with no due process.

Update: The VNRA is “opposing” a red flag law in North Dakota.

Not only do they fail to provide any sort of mental health treatment but they allow the state to deny law-abiding gun owners their due process of rights. If the state can deny due process to these law-abiding residents then what’s to stop them from denying any right to any group of people?”

Which is exactly why I am calling out the VNRA’s hypocrisy in supporting ex parte proceedings lacking in participation, before the deprivation of 2A human/civil rights, by the accused.

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

A Thundering Silence

I have spent the past ten and a half months trying to confirm or deny one little report.

On February 16, 2018, the Sun-Sentinel reported on an investigation conducted by Florida DCF of the scumbag who would become the Parkland murdering a$$h0le. Basically, it was just another case of the “authorities” blowing off another chance to do something about him before anyone died.

But eleven paragraphs in, I noticed something.

Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.

As I’ve written before, “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a specific legal status in Florida. It is based on a finding by a judge in a formal hearing in which the subject has the opportunity to appear with legal counsel. In short, a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a prohibited person under the criteria of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(4). Chumbucket should not have been able to pass a background check to buy his rifle.

But it happens. Rather a lot.

To be fair, the reporters might’ve misunderstood what DCF told them. So I contacted the Sun-Sentinel to verify that part was correct. I never received a response.

Since then, in an effort to discover if that “vulnerable adult” claim was accurate, I’ve contacted Florida DCF, state legislators, Senator Grassley (when he held a hearing on the shooting), the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school public safety commission, and the world. I have received no answers either way. From anyone. Until today.

A couple of days ago, the Sun-Sentinel’s Randy Schultz wrote an op/ed. He took the position that even if their sheriff is a complete screw-up (which he is), we still need more gun control.

If chum was a prohibited person, then gun control didn’t work. Maybe we should fix what we have before piling on more. I wrote to Schultz to suggest he look into that “vulnerable adult” issue, because I’d had zero luck myself.

Schultz replied. I’ll give him that much. In fact we had quite the email exchange.

Based on published reports, the Florida Department of Children and Families investigated and determined that Cruz was not a danger to himself. It ended there.

No. The results of that investigation had no bearing on chum’s prohibited status. They investigated because he was already a prohibited person “vulnerable adult,” according to the Sun-Sentinel. Which I told Schultz.

If you mean prohibited from buying a firearm, the conditions are that a person must have been committed or adjudicated,

Yes, and if bucket-head really was a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” that’s exactly what he went through to achieve that status. That’s why I want to know if he is: that status is achieved through adjudication of mental incompetence under Florida law.

But neither applied to Cruz.

-blink-

I gave him the Sun-Sentinel story with the original claim, and Florida and federal law cites to show that yes, it did

Correct. But the state made no no finding that he was a threat to himself.

He’s back to claiming that the investigation wouldn’t have made him a prohibited person because it cleared him. I reiterated that the investigation wasn’t done to determine if DCF should petition a judge for “vulnerable adult” staus for the a$$h0le. They were in a position to investigate him because he already was, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

You’ll have to ask the editors. I’m a freelancer.

See above: Been there, done that. They aren’t talking.

“Freelance” this: Was Cruz a prohibited person, as reported by the Sun-Sentinel, or not?

Being a reporter in the area, it should be easy enough for Schultz to check. If he was, the court record should be available. Even if sealed, that the record exists should be public. Heck, he could just talk to the original reporters and ask them to check their notes to see if that was a direct quote from DCF.

Personally, I originally thought the story simply mischaracterized Cruz’s status; reporters make mistakes. Or maybe it was correct, and I’d noticed just another governmental failure. No big deal. Except for all the dead people. I’m used to bureaucratic cock-ups.

After months of deafening silence, I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more to it.

Was Cruz a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness,” or did DCF make a series of truly amazing errors (having an adult under supervision without a judge’s ruling, making a very specific claim of that status mistakenly)?

If Cruz was a vulnerable adult, why wasn’t he reported to NICS? If he wasn’t a vulnerable adult, why does DCF have a report of an evaluation conducted of him as an adult?

If some DCF employee simply misread something, and Cruz was not classified as a vulnerable adult, why doesn’t DCF simply make the correction?

If the murderous slime was not a prohibited person, then folks like me can’t say NICS failed. Gun controllers could use that to rationalize more laws to catch folks not otherwise caught. If he was prohibited, then laws failed, and gun controllers don’t want to admit the system is at fault.

Why the silence? If he wasn’t prohibited, then that supports their gun control agenda. They could say so.

That they won’t say at all suggests to me that he was prohibited, but they can’t risk lying about it and getting caught.

 

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

Inadvertent Honesty?

I often ask victim disarming gun controllers how they expect their infringement du jour to apply to criminals who already bypass laws. For instance, I recently asked Senator Johnny Isakson [R-GA] how he expects to get criminals — who already obtain their firearms through unlawful channels around 93% of the time — to submit their black market purchases for “universal background checks;” otherwise known as preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint of rights.

I almost never get an answer. Certainly Isakson hasn’t answered yet.

This why:

Tucker Zings Progressive’s Attempt at Comparing the Border Wall to Lawful Gun Ownership
“And to borrow the NRA’s argument though, if we put a wall up though to block out illegal, you know people from coming here to want to harm us, people who come here legally are going to be the only ones stopped by that wall because people who are going to come here illegally or to harm us are going to figure out a way around it, just like they’re going to figure out how to get guns.”
[…]
[Former aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)] Hahn laughed and then continued, “No, no. Law-abiding people will be stopped by the wall but the people who wish to break our laws will avoid the wall. That’s the right’s argument for everything! It should be accepted here too!”

Don’t build a wall, because it only stops law-abiding people.

Do pass victim disarmament laws because they only stop law-abiding people.

Masks off. They aren’t even pretending anymore. As we all knew, the laws are never intended to do anything but infringe human/civil rights. Criminals aren’t even supposed to be affected.

That’s why Democrats (and Republicans like Isakson) see no irony in announcing new PPYI legislation to “honor” Gabby Giffords, who was shot by a man who passed a background check.

 

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

Escaping An Abusive Relationship

My dear, it’s time to admit it. You are in an abusive relationship. He doesn’t really love you. He loves controlling you. You may even suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, in which you’ve come to believe that he does this for your own good.

He is manipulating you with fear. He tells you that you have to give up some things, or freedoms, or you risk losing more.

That’s his modus operandi. “Just give them what they want, or they’ll take everything.”

It’s time for you to take your family and escape from his abuse. You can’t save this “relationship.” It isn’t a relationship, it’s enslavement. Get out, and go to a shelter that will protect you.

It’s time to leave the NRA.

In 1934, the NRA backed the National Firearms Act. They told you they did it to save handguns. But what it did was make militia grade weapons unaffordable, inaccessible, for most militia members. A black eye.

In 1968, the NRA compromised on the the Gun Control Act. They told you it was to prevent worse infringements. But it established licensing and large classes of “prohibited persons” with no constitutional rights. It effectively ended mail order of firearms. Bruises.

The NRA compromised on the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act. They told you it “protected’ you from unconstitutional state abuses. Those abuses still exist. And what you got was a complete ban on new machineguns, making the few in circulation far more expensive. A missing tooth.

The NRA rolled over on the Undetectable Firearms Act. They told you it was to protect existing guns. But it killed research and development of new firearms technologies. A broken, bloody nose.

Gun Free School Zone Act: For the children. But it could make you a felon for walking in the area of a school you couldn’t even see. More bruises, a cracked rib.

Brady: It’ll keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the NRA told you. They didn’t tell you that a supermajority of criminals get guns through unlawful channels bypassing background checks. You got a prior restraint on your human/civil rights, more expensive guns, delays, and the FBI keeping records of purchases. A concussion.

The NRA helped write an “assault weapon” ban. They told you it was because if they didn’t write it, it would have been worse. The NRA’s ban included SKSes with fixed ten-round magazines. Is that blood leaking from your ear?

Remember when the NRA thought constitutional carry — honest folks being armed for defense without begging the state’s permission, and paying for the privilege — was bad? The NRA actively sabotaged state-level CC efforts; successfully in New Hampshire. Slap. Punch.

The NRA supported Fix NICS, which includes language that encourages states to add people to NICS without any trial, hearing, or notice; for non-criminal activities. Boom. Coma.

The NRA petitioned the federal government to “regulate” bump-fire stocks as machineguns, then feigned surprise when they discovered that bump-fire stocks would now be banned post-1986 machineguns… thanks to the NRA’s FOPA compromise. And if bump-fire stocks “easily convert” semiautomatic rifles to machineguns… The all semiautomatic rifles are machineguns under the same open-bolt ban, or ban of semiauto ARs that could accept an M-16 trigger group. The NRA is punching and kicking your unconscious body.

The NRA has endorsed no-due process extreme risk protection orders, so-called “red flag” laws, allowing the confiscation of firearm from someone not accused of a crime. And now they’ve been used to confiscate firearms from folks who simply know someone who wasn’t accused of a crime. Oooh. Fractured skull.

So, my dear, it’s time to wake up and escape your abuser, while you still can. The NRA isn’t beating on you because it loves you; just your money. And when your abusive partner demands money to fix the injuries he inflicted upon you, find something creative to do with those NRA fundraising letters.

Leave the National Rifle Association. For good. That marriage cannot be saved.

(edit: corrected “by passing” to “bypassing”)

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

“Expropriation”

I was cruising the usual gun bloggers for newsletter fodder last week and came across this.

“Expropriation Without Compensation” is Theft
There is no voice of reason. One guy is worried it will stop foreign investment. (Really? Just because you steal things that have been in another’s possession for generations, you think people might be turned off by that?)

When I saw the post title, and knowing that a big expropriation is coming, I initially assumed this was the bump-fire stock ban, in which a minimum of hundreds of thousands of people will theoretically lose anywhere from 280,000 to 520,000 pieces of property to corrupt government acts.

But no.

South Africa is just about set to steal land from white farmers because whites are not allowed in SA anymore. (Almost) South Africa white farmers crisis: This IMPORTANT date could change South Africa FOREVER.

The date in question for South Africa is March 31, 2019, which might add to the confusion, since our ban was formally published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2018. 90 days after that (when the ban proper goes into effect) is March 26, 2019.

Pretty close coincidence. And yes, I do equate the South African and American government thefts. Both establish precedents that the government can take whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and doesn’t even have to make a token payment. In South Africa, it’s farms. In America, it’s toys.

For now. It’s a precedent. What might our benevolent government decide we don’t need next? Yes, a semiauto ban could be on the horizon. But why limit the precedent to firearms?

Anyone remember a guy named Gore, who planned to outlaw internal combustion? Take a look at the Green New Deal being pushed by incoming Democrats.

I will admit that the SA and American thefts differ in a key aspect. The South Africans formally (if rather corruptly) amended their constitution to make their theft “legal.”

In America, the ATF simply (and rather corruptly) wrote a new rule. No amendment, legislation, or rational rationale required. Just language games.

How crazy is it that the South Africans stealing land are paying more lip service to law than the United States?

Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.

 

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

Screw you, NRA

The NRA has released a Statement on Bump Fire Stock Rule. Feel free to read it, but I can paraphrase their five paragraphs in a few words:

Don’t blame us. We only wanted regulation under the NFA, registration, taxes, and a ban on new stocks. And our compromise saved us from other bans. Let’s work together.

Wayne LaPierre, or Chris Cox. It’s hard to tell them apart sometimes.

The preemptive surrender monkeys of the NRA asked for the ATF to regulate bump-fire stocks as National Firearms Act items. They asked for this as nearly the entire politico-media industrial complex was saying that bump-fire stocks turn semiautomatic rifles into machineguns.

And just in case it wasn’t clear enough, the NRA told them: “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Does that language sound familiar?

What type of NFA item did the NRA think the ATF would call them? I recall when the NRA helped draft a city “assault weapon ban” and similarly claimed they were preventing something worse. It didn’t. And the NRA version even banned SKSs with fixed ten-round magazines.

Capitulating on “bump-fire stocks turn guns into machineguns” before anyone even entered a bill merely signalled to the gun control crowd that they’re fair game, and open season. It told their pet RINOs that they would not be held responsible for human/civil rights infringement. Semiauto ban bills were then entered.

The NRA claims there could have been an amnesty for existing bump-fire stocks, as provided for in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and gives an example from 1981. Apparently they completely forgot their complicity in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 that completely closed off any possible amnesty for anything built or imported after the May 1986 deadline. (For that matter, the NRA was complicit in the NFA, claiming it would have been worse without them caving on militia grade weapons for militia members.)

If the NRA wanted an amnesty to register existing bump-fire stocks, it had to be through legislation to change the complete ban on new machineguns in FOPA. By going the ATF regulation route, they guaranteed a ban on bumpfire stocks. The Zelman Partisans have been pointing out this problem for months. The NRA didn’t notice until the rule was signed (and the problem of a semi-auto ban because they can be easily converted to “machinegun” with bump-fire stocks, the same way we lost open-bolt semi-autos)?

The NRA told the ATF to regulate these inert chunks of plastic as machineguns, and then act shocked that FOPA applies.

Either the NRA is staffed with complete idiots, or it was just another cunning plan to push rights violations so they could then fundraise to “fight” the rights violation. Or buy Wayne a limo; whichever makes him happier.

“It’s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.”

It is critical for all gun owners to unite. Folks, it isn’t your grand dad’s NRA anymore, and it’s too far gone to ever fix and make into whatever you imagine the NRA once was. The NRA has been doing this for more than two decades. I quit the NRA over it in the mid ’90s. It’s past time to tell them you aren’t buying this load of manure anymore.

Take your time, money, and effort to someone who will work for you, instead of the NRA which consistently — NFA, GCA, FOPA, GFSZA, Brady, constitutional carry, ERPOs, bump-fire — works against you and your rights.

 

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

Amnesty: GCA ’68 vs. FOPA ’86

I’m going to be posting another column tonight. This is going to be background material for it.

Some people are defending the NRA’s call for regulating bump-fire stocks under the National Firearms Act; the NRA’s… thinking… being that there could have been an amnesty to grandfather in existing stocks.

An interesting theory. The Gun Control Act of 1968 did allow for amnesty and registration periods.

But then, just 18 years later, we got the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act of 1986.

FOPA flat out slammed the door on registration of “machineguns” manufactured or imported — for civilians — after the May 1986 deadline. The possibility for other NFA items — suppressors, short-barrel firearms, etc. — might still be there. One might even argue that machineguns that had, at some point, been lawfully possessed prior to the ’86 deadline (had been registered, but somehow got improperly transferred) could still get an amnesty.

But nothing manufactured or imported after ’86. Like bump-fire stocks, which suddenly became “machineguns.”

Sorry, NRA. You should have read those laws, in which you are complicit, a little more closely.

I did. In fact, I always read legislation as, “What’s the worst possible interpretation an abusive ATF or administration could make of this?” The NRA should do the same. You aren’t going to be fundraising on your screw-ups forever; folks are getting tired of your backstabbing.

 

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

“What could go wrong?” she chirped.

The NRA, Trump, and a gaggle of gun controllers and politicians have pushed for “red flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders The alleged idea is to bypass due process to confiscate firearms from someone who supposedly poses a threat to himself or others, no evidence needed. “Due process” would come after the theft — sometimes weeks later — and leaves the allegedly “dangerous” person free to do whatever they think he might do sometime in the future.

Just yesterday, I wrote a bit of satire about the just-signed rule banning bump-fire stocks, and added this bit:

When asked about the NRA’s position on “red flag” extreme risk protection orders, another controversial gun control proposal the NRA has supported, Aikiddin whined, “No one who isn’t potentially thinking about doing something, but hasn’t, has anything to fear from red flag laws. And we think that balancing PRE-crime infringements of rights with POST due process offers legal symmetry.”

“What could go wrong?” she chirped. “But we can raise money on that, too.”

I stand corrected.

No one who isn’t potentially thinking about doing something, but hasn’t, and doesn’t know someone who maybe might consider doing something eventually, has anything to fear from red flag laws.

UPDATED: Police, school officials avert Middlebury middle school shooting
After confirming the whereabouts and establishing short-term plans for both young suspects, police turned their attention to securing their alleged source of guns.

“We executed what is called an ‘extreme risk order’ (Monday) night at a relative’s house who had all these firearms,” Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”

Not the suspect. Firearms safely secured. And they executed an “extreme risk order against an innocent person no one had even claimed was a risk.

They just violated someone’s human/civil rights for as much as six months, and without the chance to beg for restoral for up to two weeks. Because someone else — who may not even reside in that home — was accused of a pre-crime.

And the minors whom they believe were planning a crime?

“There may be some other charges down the road, but right now it’s the treatment issues we’re dealing with.”

They confiscated ten firearms from someone else based on something that they not even charge anyone for.

What could possibly go wrong? It isn’t as if anyone will ever further abuse that precedent.

Right?

 

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

The Motivation for Lying

There’s been a shooting. The shooter claims self defense. But then witnesses come forward and contradict his story. Who knows? Witnesses honestly do not always see the same thing, or they might misinterpret what they saw. The shooter may honestly believe he had to shoot the person, and maybe he did.

Then photographic evidence reveals the shooter not only blatantly lied about a crucial fact that “supported” his need to shoot, but afterwards he — or someone helping him — tampered with evidence to back up the shooter’s lie.

About now, I — and you, I hope — would have serious doubts about the righteousness of that shoot. Why did he lie? Why was evidence tampered with?

What was his real motivation?

But I’m not really talking about use of defensive force.

Now, suppose someone is passing a law or a new rule that will ban something. It’s something you consider silly, unnecessary, and wasteful. Even potentially dangerous. The rulemaker may honestly believe the item needs to be banned. And it sounds reasonable to you.

But then documentation is presented that shows the rulemaker blatantly lied about what the item does. It simply doesn’t work that way; the lie is contrary to physical reality.

Having any doubts about the rulemaker’s motivation yet?

The ban already seemed reasonable even to you, a person familiar with the topic. It already seemed beyond reasonable and absolutely imperative to a very large segment of the population. And that was before the lie.

So why would the rulemaker bother to lie about it? What does he have to gain? What’s his… future?… motivation?

Bothered yet?

Then you realize there’s another lie, that the item changes the inherent speed at which another device operates, and you know it doesn’t; it’s only an aid for the user. The user can actually do the same thing without the gadget at all.

Why lie about that, too?

This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger

And now that the “bump-stock-type device” ban is set, imagine a change in the DC power structure after the 2020 elections, less than two years away.

What would an administration even less friendly to human/civil rights do with that ban rule and it’s precedent?

Bump stock owners resist ban, in no hurry to surrender devices
“I hadn’t even heard about it,” David Reeh, an operating partner at U.S. Shooting Academy in Tulsa said Wednesday.
[…]
He said the ruling doesn’t raise alarms with him about a slippery slope for future seizures of other guns or gun parts.

I suppose if he hadn’t even heard about, then he certainly never read the NPRM, much less the rule. The ATF was counting on that kind of ignorant complacency. Lies work, if no one questions them.

 

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

“Compliance”: Bump-Stock-TYPE Devices

The bump stock ban rule is out. Bump-fire stocks are now machineguns. To power-crazed tyrants, anyway. But, since FOPA forbids possession of machineguns manufactured or imported later than May 1986, you’ll have to get rid of them.

You want to be good, right?

I suppose you could simply destroy your bump-fire stock, but if the ATF gets hold of some retailers’ customer list and comes knocking, you’ll want some proof that you already complied. You could hang on to the properly cut up pieces (you do have an oxy-acetylene torch?) and show them that.

Or you could turn in your new contraband like a good little citizen. Mail your bump-fire stock to the ATF.

Oh. Wait. That’s “bump-stock-TYPE device.” “Type” is fairly all-inclusive. To be safe, you should send in any bump-fire assist gadgets you have on hand.

Rubber bands come to mind. So do Jeans (belt loops).

For that matter, none of this is needed to bump-fire a rifle; you can do it with bare hands. But you don’t want to ship those off, so represent them with gloves.

Heck, send them a finger.

Again, any semi-auto rifle can be bump-fired, so any stock is a “bump stock,” right? If you happened to replace the original wood stock for your SKS and have the old one laying around…

..send ’em that.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226

Heck, you might even toss some shoestrings in with your bump-fire toys, just in case they change their minds again.

They do that, after all.

Don’t forget to ask for a receipt. You should even consider sending it certified mail.

On the other hand, you might want to keep your stocks. I supppose you could tie 2 bump-stocks together. “No, Mr. ATF. That there is my constitutionally-protected nunchuks.”

 

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