Jill Filipovic, of no discernable expertise in firearms policy, thinks outlawing guns will disarm criminals because there wouldn’t be anything to steal.
Welcome to reality.
Fewer guns mean fewer killings, and we all know it
The NRA and other “gun rights” proponents claim that if guns are restricted, only outlaws and bad guys will have guns. But if it were harder to buy guns, they would also stay out of the hands of irresponsible men and women, whose negligent treatment of their weapons results in a great number of deaths and injuries every year, many of which involve children. Many criminals, too, aren’t the plotting masterminds we imagine them to be. A tougher road to gun ownership would mean that impetuous gun crimes, or crimes of passion, would simply be less likely to happen.
So let’s guess that in the past ten years, 2,324,000 guns hit the streets. Could be a lot more; some estimates of stolen guns run as high as 600,000 per year. And of course, there were plenty already out there before those. Based on trends, I’d guess at least 1,300,000 were stolen in the next ten years back.
So just in twenty years we have in the neighborhood of 3.5 million completely unaccounted for guns in criminal hands. (Plus all the years before that; I suspect the stolen guns total for my lifespan is in excess of 5 million.)
That, Ms. Filipovic, is why we tell you that if you somehow managed to outlaw all guns, the outlaws will still have them.
Heck, you victim disarmers have never managed more than a 13.44% compliance on simple registration, from otherwise law-abiding people. Do you think you can get 100% compliance on a ban from actual criminals with untraceable weapons?
[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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. 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!
Cottonwood Heights, Utah police chief E. Robby Russo has issued a Special Order for his officers: They “will support” (emphasis added) Moms Demand Dead Victims. Visually.
Specifically, they “will support” Bloomberg’s MDA by wearing department-provided “orange” shirts under their uniforms in June.
Special Order 19-001
Gun violence is an epidemic in the United States, with 88 people killed by gun violence every days. Police Officers deal with the constant threats an are called upon to deliver tragic news to families touched by gun violence. The City Council has proclaimed June as “Gun Violence Awareness Month”.
As a symbol that we value human life the Cottonwood Heights Police Department will support our friends at Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America by wearing “orange” shirts under their uniforms as visual affirmation of the right of every American to live a life free from gun violence.
The department has obtained these shirt which are available in support services and authorized during the month of June.
/signed/
E. Robby Russo, Chief
This is published as an order. The language “will” is directive, as opposed to “may” which would have been suggestive. And, as it’s an order from their boss, I imagine the officers see this as mandatory anyway, regardless of what views they might personally hold on the subject of victim disarmament,
I don’t know what laws Utah might have regarding public servants forcing their underlings to express political opinions, but it’s possible the Hatch Act may come into play (and yes, it can apply to state and local officials, not just federal employees). Add the strong probability that the CHPD gets federal support through grants or the 1033 program, and I’d guess, as a non-lawyer, that Russo is subject to the Act.
Does the Act apply in this case? Utah’s latest legislative session has ended, so he isn’t forcing an expression of support of a specific bill. But he is forcing political support for a group that most definitely played an active role in pushing specific legislation.
Certainly victim disarmament/gun control is partisan, as evidenced by every Dem presidential wannabe saying so and trying to prove they’re each more anti-rights than their competitors. Not to mention House and Senate Dems blasting Republicans for footdragging on the push to feed the Constitution to the shredder.
So, in my opinion, Chief Russo is using his office to engage in partisan political activity, and is forcing his officers to do so as well. That looks very much like a Hatch Act violation. But I could be wrong.
At any rate, I wonder what the officers think about this, when the chief isn’t listening. For that matter, what do the apparently strongly Republican-leaning people of Cottonwood Heights think of the chief’s political shenanigans in support of Bloombergian harpies? Then again, they elected a city council that supports this.
Maybe that Hatch Act net can spread a little farther.
[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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
So adding to the list of who hates Israelis, I guess we can add…..Israel? For those that don’t know, the Falestinian Authority headed by Abu Mazen, one of the planners and financiers of the Munich Massacre is getting armored vehicles. And how is this happening? Well, they were donated by the European Union. And the Falestinian Authority (FA) has been demanding them. In the past Israel had refused to allow them into Judea and Samaria. But now in an effort to offset the arab hissy fit at Israel’s cutting the amount of money they give the FA every month Israel is giving in and allowing the FA their armored vehicles. This is a phenomenally bad idea.
The last time PA armored vehicles aroused controversy was in 2000 when a paper published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research identified the PA armored threat to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, saying “Because the IDF limits yishuv self defense to small arms, the growing armor vehicle capability of the PA would render the assault troops it carries invulnerable to yishuv defenders. The IDF gate guards do not have anything to stop these vehicles. The standard sliding gates for all yishuvim would buckle under the impact of such armored vehicles, and many yishuvim lack even this ‘obstacle’ – such that the only thing separating between the attacker and the yishuv is a moving aluminum arm painted red and white.”
The report went on to say that “The PA armored vehicle force is not capable of challenging the IDF, but would be unstoppable in a first strike on yishuvim. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that that is their purpose.
“Although it is possible to gain sudden entry into yishuvim by using commandos or even less prepared troops – as the examples of Ariel and Ofra show – armored vehicles provide a rapid capability to do so that ground troops cannot match.” The report can be seen in the original Hebrew here.
At that time, the IDF justified PA armored vehicles according to Oslo saying Arafat needed them to protect his government from Arab extremist elements, while at the same time trying to deny their existence.
The tax money was cut to the FA because the FA uses it to pay terrorists to kill Jews. So Israel was paying the murderers, the FA is just the middle man. So the FA is throwing a hissy fit by refusing to take any of the tax money. Ok. I can’t believe Israel gives them money anyway. It’s like installing metal detectors for the arabs on The Temple Mount. Everyone else already had to go through metal detectors. But after arabs killed Israeli policemen on the Temple Mount and Israel installed metal detectors the arabs pitched a hissy fit, refused to return to the Temple Mount and PM Netanyahu took them down. What a shame, I hear it was great for a few days on The Temple Mount, no screaming harridans.
But this latest decision will leave Israeli citizens at a decided disadvantage in terms of defending themselves. Small arms against armored vehicles while they wait for the IDF to arrive? Nonsense! Stupidity!
I have a solution. Going back in Israel’s history there was another time when Jews were denied the most effective self defense tools. This isn’t the first time a government has deprived Jews of effective tools to defend themselves while arming the enemy. It’s just the last time it wasn’t their own government. It was Britain with the “White Paper” of 1939. It remained if effect until 1948. The white paper limited Jewish immigration into Israel at a time when Jews most needed to flee Europe, before it became Europistan. Why? Because it would upset the delicate arab sensibilities. Perhaps tlaib’s kindly grandmother hadn’t explained things to the other arabs yet, this was before 1964 when the arabs suddenly and auto-magically became Falestians. And the British most definitely limited weapons access to only the arabs. Jews were suppose to rely on the British government to keep them self. Which worked out horribly.
And thus began the Jewish effort to protect the new Jewish residents in Israel. There were three different groups, Haganah, Irgun and Lechi.
Here is some basic info on the genesis of the three groups. I’m not crazy about how some of them are described, but it does tell how the came into being.
So when I found out that Israel is arming their enemy arabs against their own Israeli citizens I thought back to pre-state Israel and immediately after statehood was declared. I’m wondering what the towns and villages have to fight back with until the IDF gets there. If all you have is small arms against armored vehicles, well, there must be something better. They need guerrilla tactics.
So I wondered if there were any of the old Davidka mortars hanging around.
Yes, a real Davidka
Availability of weapons and ammunition is critical.
And then I thought about the ship, the Altalena, if you didn’t know it, Altalena was a pseudonym for Zev Jabotinsky. Understand that this ship was bringing weapons and fighters for the impeding fight for Independence, weapons and fighters desperately needed. It also was carrying new immigrants to Israel. Ben-Gurion should be ashamed.
According to the book Altalena by journalist and political analyst Shlomo Nakdimon, Ben-Gurion instructed the Israeli Air Force to sink the ship on the high seas, long before it approached the shore. This would have resulted in much greater loss of life aboard. Gordon Levett, a Mahal volunteer pilot, wrote in his book Flying Under Two Flags that Heiman Shamir Deputy Commander of the Air Force, tried to convince non-Jewish pilot volunteers to attack the ship. However, three pilots refused to participate in the mission, one of them saying, “You can kiss my foot. I did not lose four friends and fly 10,000 miles in order to bomb Jews.”
Why am I telling this old story now? Because I am concerned about the way some Americans, and painfully some Jews, misunderstand the situation in Israel and what occurred there for the last hundred years, and now. Some still blame Israel for the agony there. Some withhold their support because they find lack of perfection in this Jewish State, which is fighting continuously for its survival. Some sit here in judgement on a state and people of which they have little understanding.
When Israel was celebrating its fiftieth anniversary, my picture was on the front page of the Sacramento Bee and my family’s participation in the liberation of Israel was told inside, written by a “liberal” Jew. The writer emphasized the suffering of the Palestinians, with little understanding of the suffering of the Israelis. After all, the Israelis are the “strong” ones, therefore the “bad” ones. (Most of the media approach the Arab-Israel problem that way.) The article in the Bee was nicely done, sanitized, the way most Americans want to see this story. Most of us like to have things nicely packaged, refraining from seeing the pictures of true agony in order to continue our lives without too much involvement. Much of this shield was broken on September 11. We started to see the world in truer colors. I hope we can now see the Israeli story also as it really is, and not through the utopian eyes of unrealistic people.
So thinking back to those days of fighting for Independence, and every weapon counting as you faced overwhelming odds and lack of tools I got to wondering, could perhaps the inhabitants of the towns in jeopardy because of the decision, go together and raise the Altalena? Are there enough weapons in functional order?
And this is yet another case of how things can go sideways when only the government has the weapons, or the big guns. They will decide who gets to have them.
In America we have “Duke Nukem” Swalwell, Bear has well documented his stance on using nuclear weapons of American citizens that he later walked back as a “joke”.
So we know that any Demoncratic presidential candidate at this point probably hates Israel, hates or close to hates Jews, at least in comparison to the embrace of the religion of pieces, hates Christians. Is Ilan Omar still on the foreign relations committee today? Hates babies, hates guns, and hates strong confident self-reliant women. And men, they seem to hate ya’ll a lot. Unless of course, you think how they tell you to think. I think they hate G-d, apple pie, America and I bet they even hate George Strait. Sick bunch, not a one of the 4,325 of them running for President don’t have some scheme to confiscate, ban, restrict or in some form or fashion control guns and/or citizens, up to and including the aforementioned nukes.
So Israel is arming the enemy, Duke Nukem and his crew consider us, U.S. the enemy and while I don’t foresee a President Trump allowing a foreign country to come in here and attack citizens in an effort to render us defenseless the same can most certainly not be said of a Clintoon, Fauxcahontas, Bozo, Swalwell, Bernie, Occasional-Cortex or any of the others of that lack of caliber. I could see them happily calling in the UN.
Which makes me very happy that President Trump withdrew the United States from the Arms Trade Treaty.
Then there’s the matter of the Second Amendment. Oh, the treaty’s supporters assure us that the ATT won’t affect our right to own guns. But as Mr. Bromund points out, they also refuse to make that clear in the treaty text. So sure, the treaty (at least as now written) is no gun grab. But gun-control activists could still use it to advance their goals.
And let’s not forget a major flaw in the Arms Trade Treaty, at least if we’re to take it seriously. China and Russia, both of which are major arms exporters, aren’t party of the treaty.
So looking at all this, I’m thinking the Lehi was correct in no compromise, I’m thinking “Oh Herman Wouk, what would you have written about this sorry state of affairs?” A few more days, and he’d have been 104. May his memory be for a blessing. And I’m wondering if we need to finance some orchards and vineyards in Israel, specifically Judea and Samaria.
I have trouble just keeping up with bills in DC and my own state, so I missed this Pennsylvania victim disarmament bill until this morning. But once I heard about, I knew I had to check for the devil in the details; they’re always there. And I’ve learned that looking for the worst case scenarios hidden in legislation is worthwhile.
I’m not up on the political scene in Pennsylvania, so I can’t say how likely this is to pass and get signed into law. I hope in-state human/civil rights supporters have this on their radar.
First, the bill requires mere private citizens to register every firearm other than some antiques. That’s bad enough.
The registration process would a pain in the nether regions. Two passport-style photos taken within the past 30 days, fingerprinting, background checks. Any crime of “violence” — not just felony, or misdemeanor domestic violence — ever is a disqualifier. There is no “shall issue” in this; the State Police can still deny your registration.
And should they deny your application, you’ll have a mere ten days to get a lawyer and file an appeal. If you lose, you’ll have to dispose of the firearm(s) you naively told them you have. That’s another devilish detail; there is only one legal way to do so: Turn it over to the State Police. No compensation. You can’t sell it, or move it out of state.
Registration would be annual. And being the cynical sort — think of the nastiest implementation of a law, and plan for it — I see another potential problem.
Applications for renewal shall be made by a registrant 60 days prior to the expiration of the current registration certificate.
That’s rather specific. Not within 60 days of expiration, not no later than 60 days prior to. 60 days exactly.
State Police: “Sorry, Mr. Smith. Your renewal application is 61 days before your registration expires. Disapproved! Turn in that gun.”
Sucker: “But your office is closed tomorrow. Can I renew on Monday?”
SP: “Nope. That would be 58 days, past the deadline.”
And then we get to Section 5. Additional duties of registrant. I’ll just skip past the parts about notifying the police of thefts and any change in any detail on your registration certificate (did I mention you have to carry that around with the firearm, not safely stored in your file cabinet?) within 48 hours.
(3) Keep a firearm in the registrant’s possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, gun safe or similar device unless the firearm is in the registrant’s immediate possession and control while at the registrant’s place of residence or business or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within this Commonwealth.
You might think that’s the usual (un)safe storage requirement that victim disarming politicians have been trying to foist on honest gun owners, in an effort to provide safe workplaces for criminals (hard to shoot a violent intruder with a locked up defensive tool). Read it again. Slowly.
Unloaded, and disassembled or locked away. With only three exceptions.
1. In the registrant’s immediate possession and control while at the registrant’s place of residence.
2. In the registrant’s immediate possession and control while at the registrant’s place of business (and that has to be listed on your registration application).
3. While being used for lawful recreational purposes.
There are no exceptions for defensive carry. I suppose you could argue that shooting bad guys is fun, but that might trash your self-defense claim.
There are no exceptions for transporting the firearm from residence to work (or recreational shooting area). There are no exceptions for taking it to a self defense class.
I think that was intentional. It looks like it was modeled on the New York City restriction currently being appealed to the Supreme Court, but written to evade any favorable — to gun owners — SCOTUS ruling: We don’t restrict where you can take it, like NYC did. It just has to be nonfunctional while you transport it.
Please tell me Pennsylvania RKBA groups are on this and will stop it.
[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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I have come to the conclusion that Eric Swalwell actually is insane. I don’t mean that as hyberbole, or in a gratuitously insulting way.
I think he is crazy.
Frankly, I thought it was rather odd when he noted that “The government has nukes,” then said he was sure he and the people he threatens could find “common ground” if we just talked. We were talking, and he threatened overwhelming military force against civilians.
That isn’t normal.
Since then, I and others have been pressing him on the question which most victim disarmers avoid like the plague: How?
How is he going to enforce his proposed ban? Particularly, how is he going to accomplish a ban and turn-in when even registration schemes never get compliance rates out of the low double-digits? When even a ban on toys — bump-fire stocks — saw a compliance rate of less than one-third of one percent? And despite weeks of checking, I can only document a single bump-fire stock turned in to the ATF. Even when faced with draconian penalties under the NFA. (Unless you count my baker’s dozen.)
How, Swalwell? How are you going to get those guns?
NRA Twitter is losing its mind with “how is Swalwell going to take guns from law-abiding owners.” SPOILER: I’m not. I’m organizing with the Moms & students, and we’re going to CHANGE the law. Weapons of war will be no more. #BanandBuyBack #EndGunViolence
“[W]e’re going to CHANGE the law. Weapons of war will be no more.”
I see. That does answer the “how” question. Change the law and the firearms magically evaporate. He doesn’t have to go aftersend the Army after us.
It has to be magic, because the whole point of our questioning was based upon noncompliance with unconstitutional laws. Noncompliance which has been documented for decades.
The “weapons of war” (he also hasn’t told me what nation generally issues semi-automatic rifles to its regular troops) will simply be no more. Poof.
That is not the thinking of a person making radio contact with reality.
We have a man who threatens to kill Americans, and is clearly delusional. Eric Swalwell needs to be Baker Acted as a clear danger to himself and everyone in the country. I’d say “red flagged, too, but even this psycho has constitutional rights.
[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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Chicago Tribune’s Dahleen Glanton has a plan to offset Illinois’ oh-so-expensive violation of Second Amendment rights: Do it even more.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say that gun ownership has to be free of charge
But the freedom to own a firearm doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that owners can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced. And someone’s right to own a gun certainly does not trump the safety rights of the rest of us.
How ’bout charging Chicago South Side would-be voters $250 for voter registration, and making them pay another $100 for a background check?
To paraphrase: But who says that the people who choose to vote shouldn’t have to go into their pocketbooks every now and then? Voters have no problem approving taxes on other people for the latest welfare benefit. But if you ask them to get free voter registration cards they go ballistic. They are perfectly satisfied allowing taxpayers who would never get EBT to supplement the administrative costs for their munchies.
Perhaps $250 for a reporter’s license, and a hundred buck background check for each ill-considered column?
License to practice religion? (Huh; churches are specifically exempted from taxes.)
Hey! You could pay $250 to be free of warrantless searches.
Glanton, peruse the Bill of Rights, and tell us which — other than the Second Amendment — routinely require permission slips and preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks.
Speedy and fair trial license?
Here’s a wild idea. Instead of treating an enumerated right as a privilege to be taxed, stamped, regulated, restricted, folded, spindled, and mutilated — at some cost to government and victim alike — let’s save money — for government and victim alike — by treating the Second Amendment as the right that it is.
The money you save could be better spent on tracking down actual criminals who bypass your permission slips anyway. Of course SA Kim Foxx will probably just let them go, since dealing with real criminals is tough and scary. Honest citizens are easier marks.
[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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“Strict scrutiny” seems to the the latest bugaboo of the victim disarmers, especially in Iowa. It’s been showing up in my 2A firearms news feeds a lot in recent weeks.
And here is a somewhat typical example (and yet, atypical in an important way).
TUESDAY TOPIC: Proposed gun amendment would make Iowa less safe
Strict scrutiny is the most demanding legal standard applied in constitutional cases. It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional until the state proves otherwise. This legislation provides no exceptions, not even for laws prohibiting gun possession by violent offenders or for criminal laws that enhance sentences for crimes when a firearm is used.
“It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional”
Unless Iowa has judicial procedures which greatly differ from those of the rest of the country, that appears — to this legal layman — to be a significant… mischaracterization of the meaning of strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny does not require a judge to assume a law is unconstitutional until proven otherwise. In fact, no level of scrutiny — intermediate or rational basis review imposes such a requirement.
What strict scrutiny does require is that a judge begin by determining whether a challenged law infringes on a constitutional limit, and — if so — apply a three part test, each of which the law must pass.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, such protecting the public against a specific threat.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, to avoid unnecessary infringements.
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. Banning an entire class of firearms to prevent crime, when that class is rarely used in crimes, is not the least restrictive.
Basically, need, targeted at the problem, and doesn’t hurt anyone else. Think about that. Do you really want laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible?
And that’s strict scrutiny, applied comparatively rarely. Intermediate and rational basis review can allow laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible, which is why people-controlling victim disarmers hate strict scrutiny. Bottaro appears to prefer Intermediate scrutiny, in which restrictions on rights are merely “related” to the supposed need.
Or so I hope. A great many victim disarmers would much prefer presenting a “hypothetical” need.
Personally, I’d prefer another level of scrutiny: Constitutional. The test would be simple.
Does it infringe, even slightly, on an enumerated constitutional provision? If it does, it fails; go get a constitutional amendment. Because… just for example, the Second Amendment does not read “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless there is compelling governmental interest to do so.”
If there is a compelling governmental interest which requires going against the Constitution, then there is a compelling governmental interest in presenting Congress and the States with a proposed constitutional amendment.
But I digress.
I said that example from Tim Bottaro is atypical of the “strict scrutiny” columns I’ve seen recently. That’s because the author blurb at the bottom of the column says that Bottaro is an attorney. Unlike the usual MDA/Brady-fed laymen who whine ignorantly about scrutiny, Bottaro should know better. In fact, Jackie Stellish, also writing from Sioux City, seems to have a better grasp of scrutiny than Bottaro. Or is more honest.
I wonder if an attorney so grossly misinforming the public is a matter into which the Iowa State Bar Association might wish to look.
[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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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)
How? In this case, how will sheriffs enforce the universal background check law, Balderas?
New Mexico AG says sheriffs must enforce gun control law
New Mexico’s attorney general says law enforcement agencies must enforce a new law expanding background checks to nearly all private gun sales and that they could be liable for damage claims if they don’t.
Short of a deputy witnessing a transfer as it happens, I don’t see how it’s enforceable on law enforcement.
Deputy: “Hey, citizen. I see you have a gun. Did you do a background check before you got it?”
Citizen: “Deputy, you know I’ve had this revolver for eight years.”
Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”
Or maybe it would go like so:
Deputy: “Is that a new gun? I don’t recognize it. You do your background check?
Citizen: “Screw that. I bought it from Joe Blow on March 7, 2019, before that dumbass law got signed.”
Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”
For that matter, what’s the probable cause to investigate in the first place? Merely that an officer doesn’t recall seeing a particular person with a specific firearm before?
Deputy: “Nice rifle. Just get it?”
Citizen: “Yep.”
Deputy: “Do a NICS check first?”
Citizen: “Yep.”
Deputy: “Can you prove it?”
Citizen: “Can you prove I didn’t? I went through all four pages of that BS law, and nothin’ says I gotta keep paperwork for ya.”
Deputy: “Who ran NICS for you? I can check the dealer’s records.”
Citizen: Damned if I remember. Nothin’ says I gotta have a perfect memory either.”
Or maybe Joe Citizen bought it from Dad, or his brother. And neither kept anything but a receipt… dated 3/8/2019. Or undated. Or nothing at all; it isn’t required.
Even if a deputy witnessed a private transfer, say… at a gun show, since that’s where victim disarmers think criminal buy their guns…
Deputy: “Hey, you didn’t do a NICS check!”
Citizen: “Don’t gotta. He’s my uncle; ‘immediate family member’ as specified in the constitutional abortion.”
Deputy: “Can you prove that?”
Citizen 2: “Can you prove I’m not? Ain’t like the law requires me to carry around a marriage certificate showing I’m married to his maw’s sister.”
Deputy: “We could subpoena that.”
Citizen 2: “Did I mention that it was a common-law marriage in New Hampshire?”
I suppose if the authorities had doubts, they could confirm the transaction with the seller… who has every reason to verify the buyer’s claim since the law makes both parties criminals if they didn’t conduct the check.
I don’t think Senators Martinez and Wirth thought this through.
[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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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)
It’s an Opioid epidemic. You hear it all over the news. I read articles about it in my Farm Bureau magazine, it seems to be the “deadly German Shepherd/Doberman/Pit Bull” stories of the day. I’m so old I can remember how different decades had their designated “deadly dog” breed. Which of course is utter bull. Of any breed.
But this Opioid epidemic is so bad, it even has it’s own Wiki entry (/snark). What do we learn?
The worry surrounding the potential of a worldwide pandemic has affected opioid accessibility in countries around the world. Approximately 25.5 million people per year, including 2.5 million children, die without pain relief worldwide, with many of these cases occurring in low and middle-income countries. The current disparity in accessibility to pain relief in various countries is significant; the U.S. produces or imports 30 times as much pain relief medication as it needs while low-income countries such as Nigeria receive less than 0.2% of what they need, and 90% of all the morphine in the world is used by the world’s richest 10%.America’s opioid epidemic has resulted in an “opiophobia” that is stirring conversations among some Western legislators and philanthropists about adopting a “war on drugs rhetoric” to oppose the idea of increasing opioid accessibility in other countries, in fear of starting similar opioid epidemics abroad
Well, clearly something must be done. The government must step in. I know, more snark.
Which has led to many states passing “Prescription Drug Monitoring Program” PDMP. The government given reason is to catch people doctor shopping. The government, in addition to your doctor, feels they need to be aware of every prescription you are given. It will no doubt stop this current epidemic.
In 2016, the medical news site STAT reported that while Mexican cartels are the main source of heroin smuggled into the U.S., Chinese suppliers provide both raw fentanyl and the machinery necessary for its production. In British Columbia, police discovered a lab making 100,000 fentanyl pills each month, which they were shipping to Calgary, Alberta. 90 people in Calgary overdosed on the drug in 2015. In Southern California, a home-operated drug lab with six pill presses was uncovered by federal agents; each machine was capable of producing thousands of pills an hour.
Or not.
So what is the real reason for this intrusive action? Well, I could let Missouri’s Rep. Lynn Morris tell you about it, he’s all in favor of it.
Seems to me like this will mostly prevent people from going to their doctor and getting help when they need it. Depressed? Don’t go to the doctor, or don’t tell them. Want to quit smoking using Wellbutrin like your neighbor did? Not any more. Why not? Because those too, are medications that obama listed as being medications that should deny someone the right to own a gun. The data in the PDMP will of course be shared with other states. And of course it’s going to wind up in the federal government’s hands. I don’t care what they tell you. For example, Missouri has a law that the data obtained to get a driver’s license, for example you had to supply a copy of your birth certificate, was not suppose to leave the state. When Jay Nixon-Demoncrat was governor he betrayed the people of Missouri and turned over the data to MorphoTrust. Most assuredly not in Missouri. And then he lied publicly many times about doing it. They’re politicians, they lie. I’ve met a few honest ones, but so far Moshe Feiglin of Zehut, while on track to enter the Knesset in the next round of elections has still so far refused to come to America and enter the political arena.
But if the medical field is to be the arbiter of what is good, acceptable, legal, and kept private I would wonder how they handle other situations where they have that much power over people’s lives. I mean denying someone their G-d given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights is a pretty big thing. So, how do they acquit themselves?
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has placed gun restrictions on thousands of veterans without due process, and Congress needs to address the matter. It is quite ironic that under VA policy, the men and women who protected our nation in the armed forces are effectively becoming disarmed by unaccountable government employees.
Justina’s plight had become international news in Marty’s backyard. One fateful winter day in February 2013, Justina traveled with her mom to BCH from her West Hartford, Conn., home, seeking relief from a severe case of the flu. Ordinary sickness compounded Justina’s rare medical conditions, including mitochondrial disease and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. But those illnesses hadn’t stopped her from participating in school, competitive ice skating, and an active family life.
Instead of receiving top-notch care and attention at BCH, however, Justina was snatched from her parents and recklessly rediagnosed with a psychological condition, “somatoform disorder.” She was dragged from BCH’s neurology department to its infamous psych ward, where she was reprimanded for being unable to move her bowels or walk unassisted in her weakened state. At Wayside, she was harassed by a staffer while taking a shower. The physical and mental torture lasted 16 months.
The family is now suing the gold-medallion-adorned, scandal-plagued Boston Children’s Hospital.
It has been more than 4 years since the most infamous case of medical kidnapping in the United States occurred when the state of Massachusetts, together with Boston Children’s Hospital, seized custody of then 14-year-old Justina Pelletier over a medical disagreement.
The story exploded across mainstream and international media after her father Lou Pelletier courageously defied an unconstitutional gag order and risked prison to tell his family’s story. With heavy hitters in the national media like Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee and Dr. Phil giving them exposure, as well as an army of advocates by their side, it still took 16 months to get their daughter home.
Justina, to this day, still suffers physical, mental, and emotional trauma from all that happened to her during her captivity.
And from the above story, here’s a little tidbit I had no idea, so in case you didn’t know either:
When Justina Pelletier’s story came to light, the world learned the horrifying reality that children who are wards of the state, including foster children, may legally be used in the United States as medical lab rats or guinea pigs in drug trials and medical research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
We learned that Boston Children’s Hospital and other hospitals around the country engage in this type of practice that would ordinarily be thought of as something only the Nazis during WWII would have done.
A 2014 article by Matt Barber at WND exposed the written policy of Boston Children’s Hospital that:
“Children who are Wards of the State may be included in research that presents greater than minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit.”
Well, but that was a few years back, so perhaps the medical field has reined in their abuse of power after things like this came to light, right?
Child Protective Services (CPS) personnel attempted to kidnap Maryanne’s 13-year-old daughter. They accused her of not giving her child psychiatric medication prescribed by her doctor.
Maryanne says the medication caused side effects in her daughter and made her condition worse, which is why she refused to give her daughter the medication.
The medication was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication known for causing serious side effects such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aggression, anxiety, dizziness and lack of coordination
Child “Protective” services called the police to take the child away, a SWAT team got involved, it was just ugly.
In this one, a Mother took her flu-stricken 2 year old to a “doctor” who decided since the child wasn’t vaccinated it must have meningitis and told the Mom to take it to the ER. Child’s fever broke shortly after that and was soon playing with it’s siblings. Mom called the “doctor” said child was ok and they didn’t need to go to the ER. Doctor told them to go anyway. Mom disobeyed the “doctor” and didn’t. This resulted in a 0100 door busting entry by the local SWAT team to remove all 3 children.
And now you understand the term M. Deity complex.
But hey the judge that signed off on this offered some great words of encouragement.
Despite arguments from the family’s lawyer that they did what they believed to be the best thing for the child who had the fever, the judge ultimately sided with the state and DCS, telling the parents that they needed to “remember” that the state had a “family-reunification plan” in place, whatever that means.
And this is the same government that is going to monitor the medications you or your family members do or don’t take. It matters not to me if you take vaccines or not, I realize there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate although I notice the people that choose vaccines seem to be much more hostile about it. Calling those that don’t want them “anti-vaxxers” while those that don’t want the vaccine don’t seem to care what anyone else does, they just don’t want it themselves.
But for those that choose to put every vaccine available in themselves and their children and insist everyone else do the same at the point of a governmental gun or have their children seized. Have you considered what happens when the government, chooses to do something you disagree with? You want to home school? Too bad. You want to send your child a home made lunch rather than buy the obama lunch? Too bad. Will child protective services take you child? When you demand government make laws affecting other people’s children, someone else is demanding laws that will affect yours.
But with the medical field showing itself to be rabidly anti-gun does anyone think the PDMP will not be abused to compromise the Second Amendment? What form will that abuse take and how far will it go?
What an unholy alliance! The BATFE, the AMA and adding in a PDMP. Yesh. The cherry on top? The “red flag” ERPOs, that alphabet soup should be enough to give anyone indigestion. But whatever you do, don’t call your doctor!
Actually there may be a cure.
Missouri is called the “Show Me” state, and they may be showing us the way to handle some of this. They currently have legislation being heard called the Second Amendment Preservation Act. They’ve been trying for a few years to get it passed. The VNRA (Bear, I poached your term) lied about it one go round and killed it. But they are trying again and it’s a fabulous piece of legislation.
And here is a good video to explain it. It won’t help with the states that are foolishly enacting ERPOs and PDMPs but it may help with some other things. Like for example, government agencies that make gun rules on a whim.
I recently renewed my CPR certification, it’s required for my job. In it, in every scenario it was stressed over and over again that one of the main factors determining survival rates was the speed with which CPR was started and the effectiveness of the CPR.
So, anti-gun medical people*, explain to me a faster and more effective self-defense tool than a gun? Oh yes, prevention is important. But just as vaccines do not prove effective every time, home defense prevention doesn’t always work. Will you wait for the ambulance to come rather than starting CPR (because after all, that should be left to the professionals) even though that wait may prove fatal? Well, why do you expect me to wait for the Deputies to come when I could have had something more effective and faster? Hypocrisy much?
*I most certainly realize not all medical people are anti-gun. Not all doctors ask patients and parents “Do you own a gun” and make it part of the patients medical records. But many do, and it’s part of the patients records, records no longer kept just at the doctors office due to obamacare. If you think these Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs won’t be abused? You possibly have a fever and are delusional, or have meningitis. Take two aspirin and skip calling the doctor in the morning. Just have some nice coffee.
In keeping with April First traditions of foolery, the DC Court of Appeals denied the Guedes et al appeal for a stay on the bump-fire ban.
It is 86 pages of legalese, which you may read at your leisure. Much of it addresses the legal aspects of Whitaker’s signing the rule, and administrative issues raised. The meat that I believe most TZP readers want to see boils down to this statement.
But the Rule reasonably distinguishes binary-trigger guns on the ground that they require a second act of volition with the trigger finger. The release of a trigger is a volitional motion. But merely holding the trigger finger stationary—which is what operation of a bump stock entails—is not.
Volitionally operating your finger counts. Volitionally operating your entire off hand and arm does not. Thus, inert hunks of plastic are machineguns. As is any light-trigger firearm which might be fired with an involuntary and nonvolitional muscle twitch, or sympathetic squeeze. Essentially, any unintended — nonvolitional –discharge proves your firearm to be a machinegun.
Equally infuriating, and more dangerous, is the way they dismissed all arguments against the ATF simply redefining words and changing intent. That’s peachy. Law no longer means anything whatsoever except what an unelected bureaucrat says it does, and is subject to arbitrary change. Your broken down Trabant can be a main battle tank. Better start your NFA paperwork.
There is no law.
There is no constitution.
You’ll also love the part where the lunatics in black dresses (which I hope come standard with built-in straitjackets) find that retroactively declaring bump-fire stocks to be machineguns is not a retroactive action. The Queen would be envious of their reality-denial skills.
The one glimmer of sanity is found in the dissent by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.
“Unlike my colleagues, I believe the Bump Stock Rule does contradict the statutory definition and, respectfully, part company with them on this issue.”
And for good reasons. Sane and logical reasons. This is the first time I’ve seen a judge diagram a sentence in a ruling.
For the reasons detailed supra, I believe the Bump Stock Rule expands the statutory definition of “machinegun” and is therefore ultra vires. In my view, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and I would grant them preliminary injunctive relief.
Sadly, every other judge who has ruled on a bump-fire stock case to date believes otherwise. Even the majority (possibly unanimous, as no dissent was listed) of the Supreme Court saw no need to stay the ban. I am not optimistic as to the final outcome.
Of the case(s), or the country.
I fear the oathbreaking majority idiots have moved us another day closer to Open Season.
[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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
