Category Archives: authoritarian swine

authoritarian swine, Bump-Fire, gun control

“Compliance”: Bump-Stock-TYPE Devices

4 Comments

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

You want to be good, right?

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

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

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

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

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

Heck, send them a finger.

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

..send ’em that.

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

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

They do that, after all.

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

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

 

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

Analyzing the Bump-Stock-Type Devices Rule

6 Comments

Sorry this took so long. It’s 157 pages of bureaucratese. And partway through I got sidetracked by a closely related issue.

The key points are:

  1. It is an outright, ungrandfathered, ban on bump-fire stocks (BSTD; and there’s a reason I’m adopting the ATF’s acronym -grin-), as expected.
  2. It is as bad as expected, reiterating lies.
  3. It is potentially the basis for a complete semi-auto ban, due to the nature of the lies.

I’ll address things as I encountered them as I read the document, so this will ramble.

Page 22 presents an important false claim.

The Department explained that when a shooter who has affixed a bump-stock-type device to a semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, that movement initiates a firing sequence that produces more than one shot. And that firing sequence is “automatic” because the device harnesses the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger, so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device’s ledge (as designed). Accordingly, these devices are included under the definition of “machinegun” and, therefore, come within the purview of the NFA.

They consistently refer to a single trigger pull “initiating a firing sequence.” They treat all other actions of the trigger finger on the trigger as something magical that the BSTD does, not the shooter.

They consistently claim that BSTDs are “automatic” because the device harnesses the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle,” totally ignoring the fact that recoil only disengages the trigger from the finger. Somehow, the BSTD magically redirects the energy to push the trigger against the finger again. Of course, this is a lie; the spring-equipped Akins Accelerator did do that, but springless bump-fire stocks do not. BSTDs require the shooter to manually push the firearm forward with the supporting hand/arm.

As I said, this is a ban, so you have to destroy the BSTD.

Acceptable methods of destruction include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. If the device is made of metal, an alternative acceptable method of destruction is using an oxy/acetylene torch to make three angled cuts that completely severs design features critical to the functionality of the bump-stock-type device. Each cut should remove at least ¼ inch of metal per cut. Any method of destruction must render the device so that it is not readily restorable to a firing condition or is otherwise reduced to scrap. However, as the majority of bump-stock-type devices are made of plastic material, individuals may use a hammer to break them apart so that the device is not readily restorable to a firing condition or is otherwise reduced to scrap, and throw the pieces away.

Turning it in to the ATF is also an option.

However, current possessors also have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF office.

That’s the option I recommend.

The doc spends page upon page addressing specific concerns raised in the public commenting period, mostly to hand-wave and declare, “Nah. We don’t think so.”

Heh.

One commenter said that should ATF be asked to demonstrate the firing of a rifle equipped with a bump-stock-type device with the shooter only using his trigger hand, and no coordinated input from the other hand, it could not be done, as it requires two hands, skill, and coordination.

That was me. Challenge declined, by the way.

The Department disagrees that a shooter repeatedly actuates, functions, or pulls the trigger of a semiautomatic firearm using a bump-stock-type device with the non-trigger hand by “pushing the firearm forward.” In fact, the shooter “pulls” the trigger once and allows the firearm and attached bump-stock-type device to operate until the shooter releases the trigger finger or the constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand. The non-trigger hand never comes in contact with the trigger and does not actuate, function, or pull it. By maintaining constant forward pressure, a shooter relies on the device to capture and direct recoil energy for each subsequent round and requires no further manipulation of the trigger itself.

“relies on the device to capture and direct recoil energy for each subsequent round The BSTD pushes the firearm forward, not the shooter.

In this way, the Department also disagrees that “[r]ecoil is incidental to the firing sequence of a bump-stock type device equipped semiautomatic firearm, not intrinsic.” Without recoil and the capture and directing of that recoil energy, a bump-stock-type device would be no different from a traditional shoulder stock. As numerous commenters acknowledged, bump-stock-type devices allow shooters to fire semiautomatic firearms at a faster rate and in a different manner than they could with traditional shoulder stocks. Bump-stock-type devices do this by capturing and directing recoil mechanically, enabling continuous fire without repeated manual manipulation of the trigger by a shooter.

And things get potentially truly nasty with that. A BSTD would be just like a fixed stock if it — not the shooter, mind you — didn’t magically push the gun forward with mystically redirected recoil forces…

Did they do all their testing with previously banned Akins Accelerators?

But since BSTDs do not push the gun forward, then — by their definition of reality — BSTDs are the same as fixed stocks. If one is banned for being a machinegun… I’ll let you reason that out.

Naturally, they had to address the fact that you can bump-fire a rifle with pretty much everything, no required.

This rule defines the term “automatically” to mean “functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism.” Bump-stock-type devices enable semiautomatic firearms to operate “automatically” because they serve as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism. An item like a belt loop is not a “self-acting or self-regulating mechanism.” When such items are used for bump firing, no device is present to capture and direct the recoil energy; rather, the shooter must do so.

False. The belt loop serves exactly the same function as the bump-fire stock: to help your finger engage the trigger as you pull the firearm forward after recoil.

In fact, the belt-loop method provides a stabilizing point for the trigger finger but relies on the shooter-not a device-to harness the recoil energy so that the trigger automatically re-engages by “bumping” the shooter’s stationary trigger finger.

They are so full of… semi-hard intestinal thing… bump-fire stocks — except the spring-equipped Akins Accelerator — do not “harness the recoil energy” to return the trigger to the finger. The shooter’s tensioned arm does that, whether using bump stock, fixed stock, belt-loop or simply two hands.

In short, a BSTD is an inert object. Anything it does in terms of causing the trigger finger to engage the trigger is same as a fixed stock, or belt loop. If a gun with a bump stock is a machinegun, then so is a gun with a fixed stock, because it can be bump-fired.

Therein lays the potential semi-auto ban. Think not? Imagine if HRC has won in 2016, and this were from her administration.

And then we get to page 113. Though page 117.

Holy carp! This is fishy. They spent five pages discussing commenter’s complaint that they hosed the commenting period by linking to the closed ANPRM instead of the NPRM, and making it impossible to comment online for a brief period. And blow it off as “Too bad.” And they claim they the “online author, whose comments seemed to vanish, direct links to his comments.

I have reason to believe I am the “online author.” 1) I’m a writer for The Zelman Partisans. 2) I made a comment which was misdirected to the ANPRM instead of the NPRM. 3) I noted that comments closed. 4) I contacted the ATF to complain. 5) I wrote about this at the time, as the document describes. (Hi, ATF! So you read my stuff now?) 6) I have a series of emails between myself and the ATF, and a comment about the issue, so I may even be the commenter with which they started this section.

Where I seemingly differ from the “online author” is that no, the ATF did not provide me with direct weblinks to my comments. If that is me, as I think, then they lied. The last email I had from “The Office of Regulatory Affairs” was April 2, 2018, in which they said they’d fixed the problem. That email included the tracking numbers for my comments, but no links. I eventually dug up the direct links myself.

In fact, my last email to the ATF, in which I mentioned that a correspondent still couldn’t comment online — after the issue was supposedly addressed — went unanswered.

(And they gloss over the online commenting failure by claiming tnhat comments could have faxed their comments, ignoring the fact that they still would have had the wrong docket number.

But they lied about 1) BSTDs operate repeatedly with a single trigger pull, 2) BSTDs magically push the gun forward themselves, so why not lie about the rule-making process, as well?

Tomorrow I will offer some suggestions on compliance with this ban.

 

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)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Bump-Fire

The KSTP “Bump Stock” Memo Finally Appears

3 Comments

About that mysterious memo obtained by KSTP, which was being sent to law enforcement and FFLs… except no FFL had seen it, and which I’ve been trying to get from them since December 4th: I finally got a definite reply from KSTP’s Beth McDonough, who broke the story.

The memo at last. Um…

Well, at least one page of it.

(click to enlarge)

McDonough said that she only had one page.

Note that rather than “being sent to law enforcement agencies and gun shops with a federal firearms license,” it is an internal memo addressed to “All Special Agents in Charge.” That certainly explains why no FFL has seen it. Perhaps McDonough is a little vague on the difference between SAC and FFL.

Without the rest of the memo, including the signature block, I still don’t know where this came from. Is that “Assistant Director, Field Operations” in the ATF’s DC headquarters, is this from the Minnesota operations boss?

And it sure would be nice to see “these procedures,” so we’d have a clue about compliance (malicious though it might be).

Oddly enough, it is dated November 28, 2018, but speaks of the rule already being in effect, having been published in the Federal Register.

Not as of December 16, 2018.

According to this, the rule is in the “Final Rule Stage,” but not in “Completed Actions.”

When all is said and done, having the memo — at least the one page — doesn’t clarify much of anything.

 

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)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Bump-Fire, gun control, Law

Bump-Fire Rule Pending

3 Comments

For some reason, the coming rule banning bump-fire stocks is all over the news, as if it’s something new. Maybe it is to some of these people, but The Zelman Partisans have been on this since October of last year.

The only new data I see is this bit from CNN, which does appear to answer one question.

Under the new rule, bump stock owners would be required to destroy or surrender the devices to authorities. Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule.

Instead of making instant NFA felons out of bump-fire stock owners, they’ll have 90 days to get rid of their expensive gadgets.

How generous.

Earlier this month I noted an amusing typo in the rule notice.

It is anticipated that the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year with the highest costs).

ONE HUNDRED-TWENTY-NINE TRILLION, TWO HUNDRED-TWENTY-TWO BILLION, FOUR HUNDRED-EIGHTY-THREE MILLION EFFING DOLLARS.

I expected that “typo” to be fixed once I brought it to their attention (and people laughed). I stand corrected: It is not a typographical error.

I believe that must be the anticipated litigation cost of defending a rule based on an outright lie, and contradicting US Code, against hundreds of thousands of bump-fire stock owners (a guesstimate based on other folks’ guesstimates of more than half a million stocks in circulation).

 

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)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, spirit of rebellion

NY SPY Act: S. 9191

1 Comment

While people are starting to take notice of the New York bill that would include social media in licensing background checks, most seem to missing an important point or two.

When I first heard about this being draft, I asked, “Realizing you’re politicians, & thus insane, I ask: HOW are you going to see a 1YR Internet search history?”

The bill has been filed, and my question semi-answered.

NY: S09191 Summary: Relates to requiring social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver

Here is the most relevant part:

54 deem appropriate. In order to ascertain whether any social media
55 account or search engine history of an applicant presents any good cause
56 for the denial of a license, the investigating officer shall, after

S. 9191 3

1 obtaining the applicant’s consent pursuant to subdivision three of this
2 section, and obtaining any log-in name, password or other means for
3 accessing a personal account, service, or electronic communications
4 device necessary to review such applicant’s social media accounts and
5 search engine history, review an applicant’s social media accounts for
6 the previous three years and search engine history for the previous year
7 and investigate an applicant’s posts or searches related to (i) commonly
8 known profane slurs or biased language used to describe the race, color,
9 national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age,
10 disability or sexual orientation of a person; (ii) threatening the
11 health or safety of another person; (iii) an act of terrorism; or (iv)
12 any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer. For the
13 purposes of this subdivision, “social media accounts” shall only include
14 Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram, and “search engine” shall
15 only include Google, Yahoo and Bing.

I’ll just get this part out of the way, so I can move on to the real problems (not that this isn’t pretty bad): “[K]nown profane slurs or biased language;” also known as protected speech, unless it involves a direct threat, or actual slander/libel. I see 1st Amendment issues if they deny a licensed based on protected speech they don’t like. Especially if they don’t know what “niggardly” means.

It’s almost as if Sen. Parker set out to shred the 1st Amendment, as well as the 2nd.

Now, as to how they would check for bad-think… We don’t know. This bill says what, but doesn’t specify the process, the how.

obtaining the applicant’s consent pursuant to subdivision three of this section, and obtaining any log-in name, password or other means for accessing a personal account, service, or electronic communications device necessary to review such applicant’s social media accounts and search engine history…

You have to give them your usernames and passwords. Not just for your social media accounts, but to your phone and/or computer. That’s how they’ll be able to see your browser search history. When you hand over your phone and computer; as that’s the only reason they would need the computer logon for themselves.

When you surrender your device, make them sign a receipt with the date and time. Send the state a bill for the time. It may be useful in other ways, too, as you’ll see.

Or your boss’s computer. I can tell from web site logs (I’m an admin for several sites) that a lot of people appear to be using company computers, which matches personal in-office observations over the years. If you’ve been surfing at work, you’ll need to let them search that computer, too. I wonder how companies are going to react to that, what with proprietary files and all.

I see no mention of controls to prevent them playfully scanning through all your directories in search of… oh, financial data, HIPAA-protected medical information, your porn stash, whatever.

But let’s say the thugs are just looking at your iPhone. Is the plan to check search engine history, then hand it back to you? When do they check years of multiple social media posts? Will they use your passwords to login from your phone, or from their own computers?

If they use yours… well, that puts you out-of-pocket for a phone for quite some time. And speaking of time…. air time. Are they going to burn your air time, or provide WiFi at their expense?

I also wonder about “search engine history.” Do they differentiate between that and browser history? When checking referral search terms, I see a lot of people entering URLs (“http://www.whatever.com/index2.html”) into the search engine instead of the browser address bar. Do these politicians know the difference, or are they like people I’ve met who said their browser is “Google”?

But either way, will they follow a URL entered into the search engine to see if it really is “profane” or “biased”? What if it turns out to be a URL for a medical appointment schedule, or your online banking account? I think they’ll run afoul of HIPAA again, or federal banking laws.

And if your browser cache is part of the “history” they think is from search engines…

On the other hand, if their techno-probing is that comprehensive, there would be some wonderful opportunities for malicious compliance. If they follow URLs…

One might prepare for the probing by loading up on every Russian malware site on the Internet. If the authorities use your computer/phone for the search, have your java/ad/malware blockers turned off, then sue the hell out of them for rendering your device useless. If they download the history files to their own computer and start browsing, they’ll infect themselves.

Or My Little Pony and brony sites; that might be worse.

All in all, it would safer — for the goons — to use your device. In which case, if your computer skills are up to hacking file properties, and you’re willing to take a chance…

Install an incriminating file — child porn is extremely risky, so you might want to use ISIS videos and bomb-making instructions — with creation/access properties showing it appeared on your device while it was in the goons’ custody (you got that receipt, right?). When you get your device back, “find” it and report that someone was being very naughty with your stuff. Child porn and terrorism can fall within the feds’ purview, so report this unlawful activity by NY cops to the FBI.

And watch the great state of New York try to explain it.

Depending on how they pull the history data from your device, other options might be available. It would be a darned shame if they plugged into a USB port and sucked everything out of your browser profile folder.

Including all the trojans and worms you thoughtlessly left there.

I could probably monkeywrench without doing anything special. I don’t use Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Google, Yahoo or Bing. I can imagine a brain-dead bureaucrat going nuts trying to find them on my device. I don’t like being tracked, so I routinely delete my entire browser history. If they stick to only what’s listed in this bill, all they would see from me is a series of Twitter posts making fun of idiots, including state Senator Parker himself.

No doubt that will be “biased language used to describe his mental disability.” There’s a reason I refuse to live in New York.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

Another Country Heard From: Mere Suggestions

On the one hand, you might think this is good news for NY staters.

Some NY agencies to stop enforcing gun law
When the SAFE Act became law, it emerged as one of the most controversial pieces of legislation on the books in New York.
[…]
In Erie County, including in Buffalo, people kept getting charged with a crime under that part of the law even though federal judges had struck it down.
[…]
Those defendants will soon see those charges dropped, said Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn.

And in the future, that charge will no longer be prosecuted in the county under his administration, according to Flynn.

Charges dismissed. Excellent.

On the other hand, the provision was struck down years ago. Why were they enforcing it at all?

On the gripping hand…

Rulings from federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court ARE NOT BINDING ON STATE AGENCIES, so the 2013 and 2015 rulings on this part of the SAFE Act amount to MERE SUGGESTIONS, according to Flynn. It is up to individual county district attorneys to decide whether they will abide by the rulings of federal judges, he said.

Federal court rulings are not binding? Since when?

It isn’t like he’s in one federal court district, and the ruling came down from the other district. The ruling against the magazine limit (7 rounds in a 10-round magazine) was upheld by the 2nd Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. the 2nd Circuit covers the entire state, not to mention Connecticut and Vermont.

Yes, rulings are binding, if we still have a system of law, if New York (and Erie County) are still part of the United States of America.

It’s… nice that Flynn decided to obey the court. This time. But I’m deeply troubled by a district attorney who thinks it’s optional. Not according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

And Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

States do not get to pick and choose with which “suggestions” they feel like complying. For instance, if the folks convicted under that unconstitutional provision were to sue in federal court for deprivation of rights under color of law, and win, Flynn doesn’t get to say, “Nah. We ain’t paying up. The Constitution doesn’t apply to us.”

Unless he’s acknowledging that he has seceded from the Union. Perhaps Flynn sees federal taxes as optional as well.

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)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Elsewhere, gun control, Law

Another Licensing Proposal

3 Comments

Thomas Gabor, a Canadian pontificating on US policy, thinks we can solve all our firearms crime problems by registering, taxing, folding, stamping, spindling, and mutilating gun honest gun owners. Sort of.

Point of View: U.S. needs a more comprehensive licensing system to curtail mass shootings
A central theme of gun rights advocates is that gun laws are futile as “bad guys” will simply get around any background check system by buying their guns on the illicit market. However, in many recent mass shootings — Thousand Oaks, Pittsburgh, Parkland, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs (Texas), Orlando, Charleston — the shooters obtained their weapons legally from licensed firearms dealers after passing the FBI’s background check system (NICS). They either had no criminal records or had run-ins with the law that were not recorded in the FBI’s databases.

This “criminologist” proceeds to explain that comprehensive, universal, and astonishingly arbitrary firearm owner licensing will solve everything “mass shootings”.

Note the immediate bait and switch: When rights advocates suggest criminals will just break more laws, Gabor suddenly points and exclaims, “Look! Over there! Mass shooting!” And pretends the issue was never more general.

By suddenly shifting the discussion to “recent mass shootings,” he deflects attention from the simple facts that 63% of murderers using firearms had prior felony convictions, and that over 93% of firearms used in crimes are obtained through unlawful channels bypassing background checks. By focusing on a few high profile crimes (and ignoring shootings such as Sante Fe where the firearms were obtained illegally; and mischaracterizing the Sutherland Springs and Charleston shooters who did not obtain their weapons legally), he rationalizes licensing that cannot and will not deter the overwhelming majority of gun-armed criminals already ignoring laws.

His proposed licensing system is quite general though. Besides universal background checks preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint on all sales, he wants:

I recommend a comprehensive licensing system that would identify signs of troubling behavior beyond criminal records. Law enforcement would interview license applicants, consult references, and examine criminal, military, and mental health records. Spouses or ex-spouses would be notified of the application and could inform authorities of disturbing behavior.

Applicants would receive police training and testing in the proper use of force, safe handling of firearms and marksmanship. A 15-day waiting period would preclude gun purchases by those in the midst of a crisis. The license would apply for five years and a fee would support the licensing process.

We already know none of that will deter the vast majority of killers, but maybe it will work on those inclined to commit massacres.

For the record, Russia has far more draconian licensing laws than even Gabor is advocating. They don’t seem to have worked very well. I suppose Russia doesn’t count since gun controllers always leave it out of the comparisons between developed nations.

Norway seems pretty developed, and has licensing similar to Gabor’s concept.

In fact, Norway ranks higher than the US for mass shootings.

Hmm… Maybe we should check Gabor’s own Canada.

Oops. And look at those restrictions.

Gabor’s proposal fails cost (loss of constitutional guaranteed rights):benefit (fewer firearms fatalities) analysis.

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)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, genocide, gun control, gun grabbers, Terrorism

Nuke us till we glow, and shoot us in the dark?

1 Comment

With the Democrats winning a House majority, we have been warned to expect a lot of gun control laws, with firearms bans topping their evil wishlist. Back in May, the psychotic Rep. Swalwell [D-CA] penned an op-ed, giving us a heads-up on their intent.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

My response at the time was an email asking how he planned to enforce his totalitarian wetdream. He declined to explain.

Now we know. While Alison Airies was satisfied with stop & frisk, followed up with summary public execution, Swalwell is willing to go a bit farther.

For some reason, that May column started making the rounds again, folks apparently thinking it was published last week.

Joe Briggs tweeted an observation regarding the consequences of the ban.

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Swalwell, war criminal-in-waiting, explained how he would manage it.

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

By Friday afternoon, the nutjob was backtracking.

Joe, it’s sarcasm. He said he’s going to war with America if gun legislation was passed. I told him his government has nukes. God forbid we use sarcasm

No; Briggs said Swalwell’s attempt to massively violate the human/civil rights of tens of millions of Americans would spark a war, one started by the government. Which it would. Swalwell replied with the threat of overwhelming military force against civilians, demonstrating another bit of profound ignorance about other laws he’d have to change.

Sarcasm would be something along the lines of, “Well gee; everyone knows all the evil gun owners will meekly surrender their expensive property to the police state, so force won’t required.” Or, as he tweeted later:

But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.

That’s sarcasm. The threat of military force was not sarcasm. That was an explicit threat against innocent civilians.

Swalwell is unhinged. He is mentally ill. He has posted a threat more serious than those incriminating social media posts of recent mass shooters. He should be removed from office, and involuntarily committed as a danger to others.

It’s worth noting that this nuke-threatening politician is considering a Presidential run in 2020, potentially giving him access to the nuclear football.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

Turns out there is such a thing as a stupid question.

5 Comments

Toledo, Ohio Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz is riding his gun control hobbyhorse. This time, he’s hoping to use the imaginary economic clout of Toledo (74th largest city in the United States) to force firearms manufacturers to…

I’m not sure what. But he’s going to ask manufacturers which want to do business from whom Toledo wants to buy stuff a few questions as a condition of doing business. Seemingly, wrong answers will result in the city turning down manufacurers begging the small city to buy stuff hysterical laughter from companies which don’t need their business.

I have a few suggested answers to Kapszukiewicz’s questions, for properly motivated manufacturers.

Do you manufacture assault weapons for civilian use?

No. Ohio has no definition of “assault weapon” to put that in context, and there is no other standardized definition. Where there is a state ban on defined assault weapons, we don’t manufacture them for civilians there, because it would be illegal.

Do you sell assault weapons for civilian use?

No. No. (Ohio has no definition of “assault weapon” to put that in context, and there is no other standardized definition. Where there is a state ban on defined assault weapons, we don’t sell them to civilians there, because it would be illegal.

Which firearms does your company agree to not sell to civilians?

Agree? Which ones are you asking us not to sell? We already don’t sell machineguns to civilians, since that’s been law for 32 years. You had something else in mind?

Do you require your dealers to conduct background checks?

No. We found that us requiring background checks is redundant, since federal law already requires dealers to conduct background checks, and has done so for decades.

Does your company have a plan in place to invest in gun- and ammunition-tracing technologies?

We have a firearm tracing system in place. It’s called serial numbers and inventory control, as required by federal law for a long time. We do not manufacture ammunition, so tracing it would be impossible for us.

Do you use, at a minimum, industry best practices for inventory control and transactions?

Yes. It is and has been required by federal law for 50 years.

Ask a stupid question, get schooled.

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)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

King County Customer Service

2 Comments

In Washington state, some anti-gun busybodies have taken it upon themselves to force firearms dealers to post signs warning how “terrible” their products are.

King County to require warning signs at gun shops and ranges
The signs say the presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide, homicide and unintentional deaths to children.

Specifically, the signs must read:

“WARNING: The presence of a firearm in the home significantly increases the risk of suicide, homicide, death during domestic violence disputes and unintentional deaths to children, household members and others.”

Oh dear, we wouldn’t want people committing sui… wait.

Washington legalized assisted suicide. But you have use drugs obtained through a doctor. I guess the medical/pharmaceutical industry simply doesn’t want the competition. Can’t have tax-payers checking out without enriching the medical-industrial complex, I suppose.

King County gun stores should assist visitors by directing them to the proper shop. I suggest taping this sign to the bottom of the mandated “warning” signs.

I wonder if King County requires doctors and pharmacists to post warnings about the lethal dangers of their own products. I see to recall hearing something about an “opioid epidemic”…

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)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail