Category Archives: authoritarian swine

New Jersey seems to be annexing California through the courts

In a sane world, this suit would be dismissed instantly, with prejudice.

New Jersey Sues California Company Over ‘Ghost Guns’
New Jersey’s attorney general has sued a California company that sells gun parts that can be turned into working firearms.

The suit announced Friday alleges that U.S. Patriot Armory violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud laws when it advertised and sold gun parts to an undercover investigator last month.

The investigator bought parts for an AR-15 assault rifle.

New Jersey bans purchases of gun parts for use in making firearms with no serial numbers, called “ghost guns.” It’s also a crime to possess an unregistered assault firearm in the state.

First off, a nonfirearm transaction in California is subject to New Jersey law? I don’t think so.

There are a couple more problems. Let’s take a look at the law. The relevant section is this:

Purchasing firearm parts to manufacture untraceable firearm. In addition to any other penalty imposed under current law, a person who purchases separately or as a kit any combination of parts from which a firearm may be readily assembled with the purpose to manufacture an untraceable firearm is guilty of a crime of the third degree. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other law, a conviction under this subsection shall not merge with a conviction for any other criminal offense and the court shall impose separate sentences upon a violation of this subsection and any other criminal offense.

Fine; it’s unlawful for someone in New Jersey to purchase the parts. Sort of. It says nothing about the seller.

But the intent counts, too. The intent of the purchaser must be to assemble an assault firearm. Was it the intent of the undercover investigator to assemble such a firearm? Please say, “Yes,” because for once they didn’t include a law enforcement exemption. The investigator should be charged.

Ah, but what if the purchaser of parts lawfully own a firearm, and he wants to stock replacement parts for repairs? At least in this law, that’s perfectly lawful. Intent matters; mens rea.

For this to fly at all, the investigator would have had to specifically tell U.S. Patriot Armory that he was buying the parts with the intent of violating New Jersey law, making it a co-conspirator. Otherwise, for all the company knows, it was selling to a licensed individual building a lawful serialized gun, or repairing one.

Sadly, this is no longer a sane world, and the courts exemplify that.

 

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

If they can get you to ask the wrong question

They think they can control the discussion.

New Zealand is bringing in gun control after one mass shooting. Why doesn’t America value its citizens in the same way?

Obviously the only possible reason to oppose control is because we hate people. It couldn’t possibly be that we want the ability to defend our families and ourselves. Neat trick; demonizing gun owners as unfeeling bastards who don’t value life, while virtue-signalling his own “concern.” Qasim Rashid is a human/civil rights-violating piece of… work, who tries to steer the argument by taking his — entirely unfounded —assumption as fact.

And oh-so-well informed.

I still remember when my older brother wrote to us from US Marine Corps bootcamp to tell us that he’d earned the expert rifleman badge for his firearm. It was the highest possible award that the Marines offered.

The Marines might disagree with that, unless he was attempting to say — rather poorly — that it is the highest rifle marksmanship award.

Rashid also appears fond of another common gun people control tactic: The strawman argument.

Those who oppose responsible gun legislation claim that gun laws won’t work because criminals will still find a way to get guns. By such logic we shouldn’t have any laws at all because, after all, criminals will break them.

That’s comparatively clever, because uses part of the truth, to tell a lie of omission. In fact, we note that criminals will still get guns because the laws his slimy ilk propose always target honest gun owners, not the actual criminals. That last part is rather important. It’s particularly important for victim disarmers to ignore: Never once has any anti-gun legislator (or wannabe like Rashid) ever even attempted to answer the question of how [insert dumbass infringement imposed on honest people] will adversely impact criminals who already obtain arms through unlawful channels.

That question is always guaranteed to result in silence.

More strawmen.

Who can honestly claim that domestic abusers and violent felons deserve easy access to firearms?

Is Rashid proposing that? Because I don’t know any pro-Second Amendment people arguing to arm violent criminals.

Half-truths are another standby for scumbags like Rashid. Let’s see what else he trots out.

After the 1987 Hungerford mass shooting left 16 dead, England enacted meaningful gun reform. England has experienced one mass shooting since.

And 89 dead in vehicle, bomb, and knife attacks. And there were zero mass shootings in the 20th century prior to the Hungerford incident. Based on the fact that the next came after those “meaningful” reforms, you could as easily argue the reforms contributed to the second 20th century occurrence.

But we have to disarm the people, because only government agents can be trusted… Uh oh.

If we go back to 19th century England, all the mass shootings were committed by the government. 18th century: all by government. 17th: government forces again.

After the 1995 Port Arther [sic] mass shooting left 35 dead, Australia enacted responsible gun legislation. Australia has experienced zero mass shootings since.

Wrong. At least 8, since Port Arthur,and sixteen more massacres by other means, accounting for more deaths than the shootings.

Here’s a meaningless “factoid” that sounds impressive, if you don’t actually know a damned thing about the topic.

And after the 2009 Winnendon school shooting left 16 dead, Germany enacted responsible gun legislation. Germany has experienced only one mass shooting since.

Let’s examine that. In post-reunification Germany, there have been 5 mass shootings. From unification to Winnenden, there was an average of 5.6 years between those, with the longest gap being 9.5 years. From Winnenden to the 2016 Munich shooting was 7 years. I really don’t think there’s a trend supporting his alleged point, since the greatest period between shootings was before his “responsible” laws. As with the English “example,” a pedant could easily argue that the changes in German laws made mass shootings more common, on average.

Gaming the assumptions, lies, half-truths, and strawman arguments. It’s as if Rashid were trying to create the ultimate victim disarmament fable. All he left out was bogus “research” with synthetic control groups.

 

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

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

[Update] The CDC is lying to you

See added notes at end of article.


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.

Added: In a comment below, MC notes that WISQARS Fatal and Nonfatal Injury reports come from differing datasets.

WISQARS Fatal is sourced from the NCHS Vital Statistics System, using ICD codes.

WISQARS Nonfatal is sourced from the NEISS All Injury Program run by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

NEISS does base their estimate on the sampling I speak of. NCHS appears to use the full data, so WISQARS Fatal should be accurate.

This still leaves the question of why the available full dataset is not used for both. I suspect it is a matter of bureaucratic empire building- the CPSC started doing injury reports through their system a long time ago, and don’t want to relinquish it.

I thank MC for clarifying the difference between the two data sources.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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

I’d call it a double standard

But I’m not aware of the ATF having any standards.

Back in 2017, the ATF released a white paper, Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations. Point 8 was quite interesting.

On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.

Suppressors are “rarely used in criminal shootings.” No kidding. Therefore, they aren’t a threat to public safety and shouldn’t be NFA items. I can agree with that.

And then we have the GOA’s bump stock law suit. In oral arguments, the government…

One of the government’s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of “public safety.”

Ooooh. “Public safety.” Because bump stocks are used… Um, how often?

GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.

Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.

I’m sure the DOJ lawyer was quick to set the record straight, and tell the judge all about Mandalay Bay and all the… othertimes.

This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point.

Since that would have been a heck of a good time to affirmatively state that bump stocks were used (as opposed to being there), the refusal to do so suggests that…

Bump-fire stocks have never been used in a crime, unlike suppressors which are not a threat to public safety.

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

Strictly Speaking

I’d like to thank victim-disarmament advocate Jackie Stellish for admitting that gun control laws are unconstitutional.

The proposed amendment is not the same – ours wants “strict scrutiny.” The “strict scrutiny” language will make it much easier to bring and win legal challenges to Iowa’s gun laws.

It requires “strict scrutiny” be applied to any firearms laws, therefore much more likely a court could strike down important state laws that protect public safety, such as Iowa’s background check, concealed-carry and permit-to-purchase laws.

The concept of strict scrutiny is a binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). More specifically, the infamous Footnote Four.

“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth….”

I could stop there, having shown that — no doubt to Ms. Stellish’s dismay — strict scrutiny must be applied to any gun control law, as they infringe upon the Second “of the first ten amendments.” I needn’t show what the effect of such scrutiny would be because Stellish has already conceded that gun control laws will fail upon close examination. One might wonder, rhetorically, of course, exactly why Jackie Stellish is deliberately and overtly advocating for the violation of human/civil rights through unconstitutional laws. I seem to recall something about “conspiracy against rights.”

But this is educational, and others may not be so insightful as Stellish. I continue.

A law subjected to strict scrutiny must pass three tests. All of them.

  1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
  2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
  3. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.

Take H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 for example.First, it infringes upon a constitutionally enumerated right, so right off strict scrutiny is automatically required. Now the tests.The compelling governmental interest is “to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.” Presumably the intent would be to protect life, one of the Declaration of Independence‘s unalienable rights which “Governments are instituted” to secure.

Test one passed.

Is the law narrowly tailored to achieve that goal? No.

  • It requires everyone wishing to transfer a firearm to prove they aren’t prohibited, not just those who are.
  • It targets all transactions even though government reports confirm that prohibited persons most commonly acquire firearms through unlawful channels (primarily the black market and theft).
  • By far the most commonly used in crime type of firearm is handguns. This bill requires checks for all firearms.
  • Requiring everyone to prove they are not prohibited persons (rather requiring the government to prove they are) is presumption of guilt without due process, and a prior restraint on rights.Test two failed.Is the law the least restrictive means available? No.
    • One could create a toll-free number which any seller could call, input the buyer’s social security number to an automated system, and get an instant pass/fail, and a control number. Instead, both must travel to an FFL, pay a fee, fill out a 4473, the FFL enters the firearm in the bound book, and makes the NICS call. This creates a permanent record of who has what.
    • One could avoid regulating 100 million gun owners, and limit the regulation to prohibited persons. Via NICS, the government already tracks them. Those on parole/probation are already subject to searches, and the dangerously mentally ill shouldn’t be on the street anyway.
    • Since the black market is the primary source of crimes guns, one could ignore other transactions, and concentrate on eliminating that market with existing laws. Firearms trafficking is illegal, after all.

    Test three failed.

    H.R. 8, if passed and signed would be unconstitutional. Not to mention stupid, if the real goal was to reduce gun violence. But we know what they want.

    Shall we apply strict scrutiny to a few more victim-disarmer wet dreams?

    “Assault weapon” ban:
    1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
    2. Narrow – Bans large class of implements rarely used in violent crime, not just the handguns used predominantly. Fail.
    3. Least restrictive – Ban large class of weapons commonly held for defense, when they could simply use sentence enhancement for unlawful use. Fail.

    The ban would be unconstitutional.

    Safe storage”
    1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
    2. Narrow – Requires all defensive tools to be “secured,” even when unnecessary. Fail.
    3. Least restrictive – One could set penalties for intentionally (to meet mens rea requirements) allowing access by a prohibited person or unsupervised child and bad things actually happen. Fail.

    The ban would be unconstitutional.

    Please note that in HELLER the Supreme Court ruled that “safe storage,” even in the form of a trigger lock, fails any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights”, not just strict scrutiny. Defense attorneys, take note.

    Permit-to-purchase:
    1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
    2. Narrow – Similar to background checks. Targets everyone, not criminals. Fail.
    3. Least restrictive – Redundant, since FFL purchases — as yet — require NICS checks. Fail.

    The ban would be unconstitutional.

    The only reason these rights-violating laws stand is the appointment of judges who actively refuse to perform their constitutional and judicial duty to apply strict scrutiny to laws infringing the Second Amendment.

     

    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

Belling the Cat, Revisited

Back in 2017, shortly after the Mandalay Bay shooting sparked yet another wave of anti-rights advocacy, I noted a little compliance problem. I described what it would take to start firearms confiscations (and presumably arrests). TL;DR: It wouldn’t be pretty.

“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”
Moi, back in the ’90s

But hey; that assumed they wouldn’t know who had what, or where. But what if they could somehow manage registration this time? There’s a reason the socialist Dems are pushing universal “background checks” — preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint –so hard. It isn’t to fight crime, since criminals already bypass such checks with illegal channels. It’s to get a record of all transactions, so they can collate lists from those 4473s. If they can get this through the Senate and the White House (which I do not rule out despite Trump’s — “I’m pro-2A except for bump stocks, age limits, ex parte protective order SWATting…” — statement), the next step would be changing the law to allow the ATF to collect 4473s (which they’ve been doing anyway, during FFL inspections) and enter the information into an electronically searchable database. Once they’ve got that, the next step is to require is gun owners to register themselves and their guns, since anyone who did NICS is already in their files.

Then owner licensing.

All that might take a while, but if the Dems get the White House in 2020, it’ll speed up.

So let’s look ahead and guess what they might do with total registration. Again, we know it won’t have anything to do with fighting violent crime. It’s about us. They really need us disarmed to carry out the Green Raw Deal. Will it work?

No. As it happens, we already have fine examples of owner licensing and firearm registration, coupled with confiscations: California and Illinois.

A year ago, California was using their lists to confiscate firearms from people who’d “lost” their right to keep and bear arms (such as it is in the People’s Republik). They had a backlogged of 10,225 people to shake down. In a multi-agency, two-day operation, they attempted to confiscate weapons from 47 people.

They recovered one gun.

A year later, that backlog increased to more than 23,200. When they know where to go. What to look for.

Then there’s Illinois, where their record keeping is, in actuality, so bad that they issue Firearm Owner IDs — licenses — to felons. Who pass background checks. On those rare occasions, when they realize someone has become prohibited, less than half the time does the person turn in his weapons; probably 6,000 per year still armed. And they can’t figure it out until one of those known criminals goes on a killing spree.

States can’t keep up now, when they know who has how many guns, and where. Go national with another 100,000,000 targets of unknown locations and arms. It would be impossible for them to perform confiscations through unconstitutional law enforcement actions, much less bound by constitutional due process requirements.

With registration — however they attempt it — the government cannot successfully confiscate through normal processes even if they bypassed posse comitatus and use every man, woman, and whatever in the military.

Remember California Representative — and presidential hopeful — Swalwell’s threat of overwhelming military force? That was neither joke nor hyperbole. It was a trial balloon, to see how people — including the usually anti-military left — would react to the idea of waging war against gun owners. Because law enforcement methods demonstrably do not work, and they know it.

Imagine 2020. Trump and the Republicans caved on major campaign promises: border security, killing Obamacare, gun control especially. Sure, Trump still talks the talk, but his actions prove him a liar. And the Senate Republicans let reciprocal carry and hearing protection die.

They alienated their voter base, who turn to anti-Republican protest votes or just stay home. Democrats take the House, Senate, and White House. President Whomever (they’re all pro-Green Raw Deal socialists, and anti-rights) declare a gun violence national emergency. A flurry of disarmament bills pass as fast as the first background check bill of the 116th Congress.

And the military mobilizes; designated cat-bellers.

Pre-Obama, I would have rated the odds of the military going along as being pretty low. But the leadership has been purged and social justice is damned near written into the UCMJ. I’m not taking bets on what they’d do.

But Swalwell and others have told us what they want to do. A declaration of war on America. I suppose they imagine it as a civil war between professional military forces and Bible-clutching deplorables; good reality TV, while they sip Chardonnay.

They should be so lucky. They would be declaring open hunting season, with Clinton Rules of Engagement.

I don’t want that. And neither should they. No one sane does.

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