Category Archives: authoritarian swine

authoritarian swine, gun control, Politics, Rights, Voting

Anti-Gun Voter Intimidation Initiative

The Brady Campaign to Protect Violent Criminals, along with a hodgepodge of Democrat and left-wing groups, appears to be conspiring to intimidate voters.

Campaign to ‘protect voters’ asks for help in keeping guns out of polling places
Gun-control groups are launching a “voter protection campaign” to keep guns out of the polling booths this Election Day.

The social media campaign is encouraging voters who see people with firearms to text “Guns down” to 91990. Reports will be sent to nonpartisan election protection experts, who may contact authorities or send a lawyer to the polling place.

Nonpartisan my rear end.

The campaign targets key districts that have competitive races and high number of gun-owning households in Florida, Texas, Indiana, Nevada, Wisconsin, Colorado and Georgia.

You get that? Races where Republicans and Democrats are running neck and neck… which also have a lot of gun owners. Why is that important?

Gun owners tend strongly to be anything but Democrat. Independent or Republican. These Dem tools are putting together a network of anonymous snitches to report — and prevent voting by — suspected gun owners non-Democrat voters, thus tipping tight races to Dems.

Anti-gun Dems, like Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who admits to expecting noncitizens to vote for her.

The partisan voter intimidation isn’t obvious enough yet? Only six states specifically ban firearms from polling places: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. In more than half the states they say they will specifically target, CCW at the polls is legal (other laws might come into play, if polling places are in schools, for instance).

They’re targeting lawful activities of probable opposition voters.

They’re conspiring to suppress opposition votes. That happens to be a federal crime: 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
[…]
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The civil penalties under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights can be rather impressive as well.

I happen to be a lawful gun owner. I have a GWL (CCW). I generally carry every day.

I also happen to live in one of the states on which they are focusing.

Note that I said “lawful.” I am aware of my state’s restriction on firearms at polling places. I comply (unhappily, but I comply). I dislike leaving my defensive tools in an unattended vehicle, so when I vote — and I do — I leave my sidearm at home. I go straight to the polling station, vote, and go right back home, where my Second Amendment human/civil rights are back in effect.

I will go to vote on November 6. I will comply with the law. But my apparel will make it clear that I am a gun owner (without falling afoul of political speech restrictions). I’ll even try to look like I’m voting Republican.

And if one of these voter intimidating snitches fingers me, I’ll simply exclaim, “Jackpot!”

Which will be nice, as I hardly expect to win the Mega Millions prize.

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

Just Do It

2 Comments

“9X% want…”

Put up. Or shut up.

I keep hearing this. I’ve been hearing it for years, in varying percentages, but always something considerably more than a mere super-majority.

But if you question why, if 95% of freaking everyone wants PPYI/AWB/waiting periods/free bubble-up/rainbow stew, the legislators won’t grant that wish, you’ll invariably hear that the NRA somehow owns everyone (despite the fact that Michael Bloomberg alone pours more money into campaigns that the entire NRA/ILA) and are stopping commonsense tyranny.

Or ask why, when universal universal background checks actually go to a vote of the people directly via referendum, the vote has never — even in left-wing Washington — gotten within 30 percentage points of the claimed ninety-whatever-they-claim-today. And that’s when it passes at all.They mutter something about the NRA buying the vote… of ALL THE INDIVIDUAL VOTERS?

Where’s my pile of money? Someone’s remiss in payment.

These are alleged adults, but the “NRA” is a bigger boogeyman to them than childhood’s monster-under-the-bed and the thing-in-the-closet combined.

[And manages to miss the little facts that the NRA backed: NFA’34, GCA’68, FOPA’86, Brady Bill PPYI, “assault weapon” bans, no-due process ERPOs, and bump-fire stock bans. And blocked constitutional carry. A gun control ally like that scares them?]

So here’s another question for them. A recent proposal was made to implement a total ban on firearms of any type, by anyone, via zoning laws.

Yeah, pretty silly, except for being completely unconstitutional and in direct contravention of judicial precedent on the very subject of 2A infringements through zoning laws.

Even in California.

I digress. Here’s the question:

If all you hundreds of millions (95% of 327 million is 310.65 million) of folks want to be gun-free, why not form your own privately owned and operated communities, in which everyone clearly wants to be gun-free?

TL;DR: If so many of you want to be totally gun-free, why do you need laws, and what are you waiting for? Just Do It.

95% want universal background checks? Just stroll down to your neighborhood gun store and pay him to run it. You’ll probably pay a surcharge as well, for the firearm handling fee since the gun will go in his bound book.

95% want some class of guns banned? Just turn yours in to the local cop shop. Better call ahead. You don’t need to wait for everyone else.

95% want gun registration? Just fill out this form and mail it to the ATF for their convenience. (And that will make a nice metric to show that 95% really wanted it, when the ATF receives 310 million letters all at once. Right?)

95% want bump-fire stocks banned? Under the coming rule, those will be NFA items, so mail them to the ATF, too. (And another nice metric; the ATF should receive roughly 475,000 stocks.)

I’m sure Chicago South Side zip codes will be well represented in those voluntary mailings.

Just do it. No one is stopping you.

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, gun grabbers, Law

Witkin Is Zoned Out

6 Comments

This little piece of witlessness made the rounds last week:

Can zoning laws settle the gun debate?
If there could be a “right” to be free of guns, the logical question is then how it should be asserted. The answer may be in zoning. Because gun rights are tied to personal security, there appears to be room for citizens to exclude guns in their immediate surroundings as one means of protecting themselves.

No.

The is no “right” to be free of guns owned by other people. Your rights do not extend to denying other people’s rights. One can choose to be free of guns by not owning one. One cannot choose to make anyone else not own a gun. You do not have a right to my property.

Because gun rights were tied to personal security, there appears to be room for citizens to exclude guns in their immediate surroundings as one means of protecting themselves.

Witkin cites Heller, and claims that a decision, which specifically ruled against firearms restrictions so onerous as to prevent possession, somehow supports… zoning laws that prevent possession.

For example, zoning at the neighborhood or even block level could allow people to assert a right to be free from guns. Zoning is a policy tool that courts have upheld even when it clashes with the constitutional rights of individuals, such as freedom of expression and the sale of guWill he volunteer to lead the stack in confiscation raids?ns.

And there he cites Teixeira to demonstrate that zoning laws can restrict Second Amendment rights. Wrongly:

The district court’s characterization of residentially-zoned districts” as “sensitive areas” is incongruous with Heller, which assumed that firearms could be restricted in sensitive places “such as schools and government buildings,” specifically in contrast to residences, where firearms could not be prohibited.

It seems unlikely that Witlesskin actually read Teixeira, any more than he read Heller. Teixeira did not uphold the restriction of 2A rights through zoning; it found that zoning which excluded a proposed gun store did not infringe upon a recognized right because there were other stores in the area where firearms could be purchased, and people could still possess firearms. That is the opposite of Witkin’s claim.

I repeat: Heller (and later McDonald) specifically ruled against firearms restrictions so onerous as to prevent possession.

No, you cannot zone away our rights.

Federal courts are pretty consistent in recognizing that one can’t simply wave away constitutional rights. Take a look at Winbigler v. Warren County Housing Authority, in which the plaintiff challenged a public housing lease provision banning firearms possession outright.

The Court hereby permanently enjoins and restrains Defendant WCHA from enforcing the following lease provisions:

5(h): The Resident, the Residents household members and household guests shall not: discharge or use firearms or fireworks, or store explosive or flammatory materials.

18(p): Any termination of this Lease shall be carried out in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations, State and local law, and the terms of this Lease. The Landlord shall not terminate or refuse to renew the Lease other than for serious or repeated violation of material terms of the Lease on the part of the Resident, all members of the Resident’s household and all visitors/guests of the Resident such as the following: Offensive weapons or illegal drugs seized in the Landlord’s unit by a law enforcement officer or to permit any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the Resident’s control to use, possess or have control over firearms (this includes keeping firearms on one’s body, in the dwelling unit, or in a vehicle which the Resident or a member of the Resident’s household as the use of or access to. Firearms are defined as any devices which will propel a projectile with sufficient force to injure, kill, or damage property regardless of whether it does so with an explosive charge, compressed gas, or by other means).

Georgetown University should be ashamed of publishing that ignorant drivel, and more so of the rights-violation advocacy.

You can’t do it. Not by zoning, not by lease, not by HOA restrictions. But ill-informed people like Witkin will keep trying, so let’s move on to the practical problem of enforcement, which he glosses over.

Ideally, enforcement of gun-free zoning laws should be generally light, such as civil forfeiture or forced sale of the firearm, but harsher on violent criminals who possess guns.

Compliance. He, as typically happens, left out the “How”.

Specifically, how Witkin would ensure everyone complied with his gun-free neighborhood laws. How will he locate and seize Grandma’s bedside table revolver? Door to door searches? With a warrant based upon, “Gee, judge; we just need to see if anyone might be breaking our law”? Perhaps he can pass a warrant-free zone law as well.

I wonder if he’s considered the implications of kicking in doors because he thinks the residents are well armed. When California legislators first considered their “assault weapon” ban, the head of the police union declared they’d see the largest outbreak of “blue flu” in history if they had to do door to door searches. Legislators immediately modified their bill.

Does Witkin believe everyone (law-abiding and criminal alike) will meekly turn stuff in? California got a 2.33% compliance rate with just registration. Connecticut thinks they might have gotten 13.44% compliance with their “assault weapon” registration scheme.

How will Witkin bell that cat?

Will he volunteer to lead the stack in confiscation raids?

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

Physician, heal thyself

On the one hand, we have SAFE (Scrubs Addressing the Firearm Epidemic).

SAFE is naming gun violence for what it is – a health threat of epidemic proportion – in order to rally the medical community to fight for the interests of our patients. It is time for us to bring the same urgency and dedication to the task of eliminating gun violence as we have to exposing other health risks, such as cigarette smoking.

In the past couple of weeks, SAFE has been popping up all over the anti-rights media.

Why your doctor wants to talk about guns.

I wrote about them back on September 15, 2018.

“Stanford doctors lead national effort to stop gun violence
If a virus, bacteria or cancer killed 35,000 people a year, there would be an outraged demand for a cure, they say.”

Wait. What? He’s sort of right about cancer. It doesn’t kill just 35,000 people per year. It kills 17 TIMES that many.

Do you know what else kills more people than guns?

The tricky part of estimating doctor-related deaths is that — oddly conveniently for someone — there is no medical reporting code to indicate that a… drug overdose, for example… was, “Oops. My bad.”

Per CDC’s WISQARS: Firearms-related deaths, all intents:

  • 1999: 28,874
  • 2010: 31,672
  • 2013: 33,636
  • 2016: 38,658

You are 6.47 to 11.38 times more likely to die by medical professional than by gun. Those medical professionals who arrogantly deign to tell us firearms are the problem.

Medical reporting codes for firearms — yes, they code that — break it down by handgun, rifle, shotgun, accident, suicide, and homicide. Perhaps they need to break down their own killings by surgeon, resident, nurse, homicide, and accident. (Although I know of one hospital… choosing to go there might be classed as suicide.)

As for other numbers…

Estimates of gun owners range from 80,000,000 to more than 120,000,000. If each firearm-related death represented a single, discrete owner, then a mere 0.03% — three-hundredths of one percent — to 0.04% — four-hundredths of one percent — of gun owners killed someone with a gun.

There are an estimated 1,000,000 doctors in the US. If we similarly assume — just for giggles — that each medical death represents one doctor…

Whoa. 25% to 44% — forty-four; not point 44 — of doctors kill.

Statistically, that makes doctors 1,466.66 times more likely to kill than is a gun owner. (Interestingly, I ran this same analysis twenty years and came up with close to the same ratio: 1,400 times.)

Maybe they should change their name to Scrubs Addressing the Doctor Infestation.

They could call themselves “SADIsts.”

On the other hand, we have Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

DRGO educates health professionals and the public in the best available science and expertise about firearms, including gun safety and preventing injury and death through wise use and lawful self defense. We teach what science shows—that guns in responsible hands save lives, reduce injuries, and protect property by preventing violent crime.

DRGO has a little better understanding of the relative risks. I suspect they’re better doctors, too.

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, Media, Politics, resistance

A Foregone Conclusion

19 Comments

As predicted, our pro-RKBA president — who would never put our rights under siege — is going ahead with the bump-fire ban. As urged by the NRA.

That is despite 193,297 comments, of which 85% opposed the rule.

Mostly based on physical reality.

So why is something this blatantly wrong — morally, constitutionally, and physically — going ahead?

“Why” is easy. 1) It’s the perfect lead-in for a complete ban on semiautomatic firearms. 2) Progressive Democrats and police-statist Republicans think they can get away with it.

The “how” do they think they can do this, how did a yammering pack of ignorami come to screech for it, is trickier.

Propagandizing media prostitutes, feeding utter garbage — lies, fake statistics, misdirection –to the masses.

Case in point: a Reuters article about Trump announcing the eminent rule fiat.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday his administration is just a few weeks away from finalizing a regulation that would ban so-called bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.

They led with a lie: “fire like machine guns.” Which they don’t. It can sound like a machine gun, but the operation is pure semi-auto. And they know it.

Because I told them.

A year ago in Las Vegas, gunman Stephen Paddock used bump stocks on 12 of his weapons in a mass shooting that killed 58 people and wounded hundreds.

I called them on that claim, as well. No official report — and oddly, not even any unofficial leak which I’ve found — states what firearms were used by the shooter, with the sole exception of the revolver he used on himself. No ballistics data tying rounds fired to any specific weapon have been released to the public.

I told Reuters to provide a source, or retract the claim.

While machine guns are outlawed in the United States, bump stocks
are not.
While machine guns manufactured after May 1986 are outlawed in the United States, bump stocks are not.

Yeah, I called them on that bit of stupidity, which seems to be one of the secret-squirrel-official talking points being pushed recently. Reuters did fix that one.

One outa three ain’t… good.

The media magically made gimmicky training wheels into the weapon of choice of mass murderers everywhere… in an alternate reality.

In this reality, someone involved in the Vegas investigation told reporters that at least one of the shooter’s weapons was an illegal full auto conversion, in addition to the bump-fire stocked rifles.

Which would go far in explaining why bipods would be mounted on “bump-stocked” guns, when that would prevent them being bump-fired.

Within three days, bump-fire stocks became the designated boogeyman. Full-auto dropped from the narrative. Dropped. Never mentioned again, not even to say the person “misspoke.”

And that would far in explaining why the ATF — the official arbiters -gag- all things allowed and/or regulated in the firearms world… was not allowed to examine the shooter’s weapons. Admitting that the scumbag somehow broke existing laws to use real machineguns, and that the silly bump-fire stocked weapons were only emergency backup, would diddle the official OMG-ban-bump-stocks (and lead in for a semiauto ban) bipartisan line.

Trump gives a 2-3 week time frame for his new infringement. By the formal process, it could be as much as 90 days. But it is coming. What now?

Hard to say until we see the exact form of the rule. It sounds like bump-fire stocks will be — as expected — declared to be machineguns, which makes them illegal as they were manufactured after May ’86.

But Trump has been known to exaggerate -roll eyes- so maybe they’ll get classed with short-barrel rifles and shotguns; pay your money, keep your stock.

All I can recommend at this point is that you consider… compliance. The more malicious the better.

For instance, if the stocks are banned, and have to be turned in or destroyed, one might assume obsessive-compulsive bureaucrats will have a way to document that. Probably forms. Everyone might want to order a few… for every 200 stocks you “have.” Don’t forget spare forms in case you make a typo.

As for the stocks themselves? Just remember what a bump-fire stock really is. And every foot-long piece of PVC pipe that will fit over a buffer tube is a bump-fire stock. Dear Bog, my local Lowe’s has thousands of stocks.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Rights

Carol Bowne Right to Safety Act

2 Comments

In 2015, Carol Bowne had a restraining order against an abusive ex-boyfriend. But she was wise enough to know paper isn’t a good shield, so she tried to lawfully obtain a defensive firearm.

She waited.

And waited. For New Jersey to deign to grant her permission to protect herself.

Carol Bowne was murdered while awaiting government permission to obtain a defense firearm.

The murderer killed himself later… with a firearm that he possessed unlawfully as a convicted felon. Unlike Carol, he simply ignored the government’s edicts; those just for honest people.

Carol Bowne tried trusting the government.

She died. “A right delayed is…” deadly.

Federal delays of human/civil rights can be just as deadly and state and local violations. National instant criminal background checks (NICS) inherently delay rights. Maybe for a few minutes, maybe a few days, or possibly permanently.

Millions of firearms transaction have been denied by NICS. The Bradys and the victim-disarming confederates brag about it. But 93% of those millions of denials were false positives; violation of rights without cause. The false positive rate may be as high a 99.8%, if you judge by the lack of prosecutions for the remaining 7%.

The government doesn’t track false negatives; those incidents where some prohibited person somehow passes his NICS check. Take a look at the 4473. With name, address, place of birth, date of birth, sex, race, ethnicity, and a physical description, NICS can’t tell a prohibited John Smith from a law-abiding John Smith.

If they even bother with NICS at all.

88-91% of guns used in crimes are stolen, thus bypassing background checks. Only 7% of guns used in crimes were obtained through lawful channels. Presumably because theft is easier and cheaper than buying from an FFL.

And while NICS is mandatory for us law-abiding types, who aren’t out there committing the crimes, the Supreme Court’s HAYNES decision says felons can’t be required to self-incriminate by reporting their attempt to unlawfully obtain a firearm with a NICS check.

NICS doesn’t work. And it only applies to the law-abiding; not simply because the law-abiding are the only ones who’ll bother, but because they are the only ones required to do it.

Kinda makes you wonder why the Brady Bill was pushed as an anti-crime measure, unless violation of rights was the intent.

18 U.S. Code § 922(t)
(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—”
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Violating rights was the point from the beginning. Violators are specifically protected from any consequences of their unconstitutional acts (or inaction).

Let’s write that up formally.

18 U.S. Code § 922
(t)
Strike “(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—”
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

and replace with

(6) Any local government or employee of the Federal Government or of any State of local government, shall be liable in a civil action for damages—
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Added: 18 U.S. Code § 922(t)
(7) It shall be a felony under 18 U.S. Code § 242 for any local government or employee of the Federal Government or of any State of local government to deny or impede the Second Amendment rights of any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District not prohibited from firearms possession under this section; and that offender shall be guilty as an accessory to the crime if the failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section results in a crime committed with the firearm.

It’s high time that those in government face consequences for screwing up, just as us little citizens must.

It occurs to me that someone might look up at the masthead at that, “No compromise” and think that I’m offering just that on preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restrain NICS checks. Read that proposed text again.

Permits and licenses (which criminals bypass) impede rights.

Waiting periods (which criminals bypass) impede rights.

“May issue” denials (which criminals bypass) deny rights.

I’m not compromising. I’m giving the Second Amendment the teeth it lacks. Consider the “accessory” provisions of paragraph (7): that can allow for Felony Murder charges for violators.

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, Politics

The Question Which Must Not Be Answered.

4 Comments

It’s a very simple question, short, to the point, and critical to sane discussion of “gun control.” Yet, with very few exceptions, victim-disarming people controllers will not answer. And they’ll try to disavow the honest lunatics who do.

How?

That’s it. That’s the question. When the question isn’t just ignored, they deflect. “You’re just saying criminals don’t obey laws again. That isn’t worth addressing.” Or, “I told you; we’ll pass a law.”

“Pass a law” is the what. I want to know the how.

Stephany Rose Spaulding, “the underdog Democrat challenging incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn for Colorado’s 5th District,” wants more gun people control.

That responsibility could come in a federal mandate that anyone seeking to buy a firearm would have to pass a background check, Spaulding said.

Spaulding, backed Moms Demand Victims’ Shannon Watts, purports to believe that universal background checks preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint would cut the “number of suicides, domestic and police shootings across the country” in half.

I asked her, “How?” Specifically, when no more than 6% of criminals using firearms obtained them through lawful channels, how would you implement such a requirement to ensure compliance? How do you get those criminals to comply with NICS checks? (It seems to me that making them undergo NICS checks would necessitate eliminating the black market in firearms completely. Again, “How?”)

-crickets-

Spaulding wants a national “red flag” law, too.

How? How will her law work? Would this be the typical “red flag” legislation that allows confiscation before due process, and leaves this alleged dangerous person on the street, and now angered by the taking?

-crickets-

Spaulding also said she wants to expand the definition of domestic violence, a significant indicator of those who might commit gun violence. In tandem with that legislation, she wants to ensure that those convicted of domestic violence could not own firearms.

Expanded to include what? Those convicted of domestic violence are already prohibited persons, so what additional means would she implement to prevent tham possessing firearms? How?

-crickets-

“We have eroded the responsibility of what it means to be owners of firearms,” she said. “And for me that is not ‘Can I take away?’ or ‘Should I take away your guns?’ but asking people to be responsible.”

How? How is “responsibility” strengthened by taking the responsibility from the people and putting it in the hands of government?

-crickets-

Parroting talking points is easy. Policy is…

…actually not that tough. That’s how to end “gun” violence. Admittedly, implementing it will require hard choices that most politicians are incapable of making.

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

Half-Witt or Full Liar?

3 Comments

Oregon Rep. Brad Witt has a little accuracy problem.

Rep. Witt advocates for new gun legislation in Oregon
The state representative for District 31 confirmed Wednesday that he’s considering a package of bills that would, among other things, raise the age for purchasing semiautomatic weapons.

What about raising the age for other constitutionally guaranteed rights?

He’d also like to see bump stocks outlawed. Bump stocks — devices that can be attached to a semiautomatic weapons to increase their firing speed

That again. Ignorance, or deception?

“Bump stocks elevate the level of fire on a firearm to something very close and akin to an automatic weapon that was outlawed many decades ago during prohibition,” Witt said.

I emailed Witt to point out that he doesn’t understand bump-fire stocks, and to tell him automatic weapons are not “outlawed” federally or in Oregon. His reply:

Hey Carl…..absent a federal stamp, it’s illegal to carry a full auto in Oregon. You might want to check into the federal law.

Brad

He knows about tax stamps? Oh ho. So he knows about the NFA. That means he knows darned well that automatic weapons are regulated, not outlawed.

I haven’t determined if he’s a half-wit, but he just proved himself a liar.

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, self defense

“Defense” – Sexism and Job Security

2 Comments

I ran across a story this morning about a women’s self defense class being run by some Florida law enforcement agencies.

Right away, I suspected this would be the usual crap.

FL: Self-defense lessons teach women to spot, thwart attack
The program is called W.A.V.E., which stands for Women Against Violent Encounters. It’s a free two-day, women-only course being held at the Courtyard Marriott.

The class will be taught by instructors from the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, the St. Augustine Police Department and the St. Augustine Beach Police Department.

The two-day course will teach women how to recognize a threat and will show them simple self-defense moves, including punches and kicks. Women will have the opportunity to practice what they learn during the class.

But, in the interest of accuracy, I wrote to the St. Augustine Police Department to get some specifics.

Good day,

I heard about the class to be held September 24-25. I have a few questions about the course content.

1. How much range time will the class include?

2. Will firearm selection, carry style (and holster type) be addressed?

3. How much time will be spent on use of force law?

Thank you for your time.

Yes, I’m a naughty person. And yes, my assumption proved accurate.

This is not a firearms course. It is a self defense class for woman.

Michal Ochkie

No guns. Because it’s for women?

Apparently.

Carl,

This is not a firearms course. It is a course that focuses on teaching women threat awareness as well as self-defense techniques. We go over assertiveness, verbal skills as well as physical techniques.

Hope this answered all of your questions.

Thanks,

Ofc. Dee Brown #2943
Community Affairs Division
St. Augustine Police Department

A self defense class for women which… Well, that called for a response.

I am aware that it is a self defense class for women. But you’re going to teach them to go hand to hand with larger stronger men, instead of using the most effective defense tools available?

I suppose ensuring a steady supply of predators and victims is one way to guarantee job security.

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, gun grabbers, Rights

What color is your coat?

David Codrea addresses the recent minor furor over the lack of prosecutions for NICS denials.

Gun Groups and Grabbers Find Common Ground on NICS Denial Prosecutions
That mass roundups of the scofflaws haven’t begun has got gun-grabbers – and some gun groups – in a lather. Lost in much of the noise is economist and author John Lott’s contention that a “high percentage” of “false positives” wrongly deny purchases. Not that due process is a concern when there are guns to be “taken off the street”…

I was a bit concerned where Codrea was going with this initially, since I’m not one of those in a lather over lackadaisical enforcement. My take differs that; and it certainly doesn’t share common ground with human/civil rights violating victim-disarmers.

Let me spell it out for those who have not yet caught on:

We now have 20 years of data that clearly establishes that preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint on Second Amendment-guaranteed (not “protected,” sadly) human/civil rights is a complete failure as “gun safety.”

1. Roughly 96% of the denials proved to be false positives. As David notes, there were a mere 12 referrals for prosecution in 2017. The last time I checked the total number since it began, it was…

140. In two decades. Out of tens of millions of NICS transactions.

When the Bradys et al proudly point at three million denials, they are gleefully bragging on violating constitutionally guaranteed (not “protected,” damnit) rights of 2,880,000 innocent people.

Almost three million people that they have successfully — at least for a time — rendered into helpless targets for criminal predators. And they’re happy about it. If you hadn’t before, think about that now.

That’s false positives, which brings us to…

2. False Negatives. Almost every week, I come across a news story about a felon (or other prohibited person) who got a gun by passing the NICS check. No one seems to track false negatives, so I don’t know how common it is. And I’m not speaking of cases like the DC Navy Yard or Sutherland Springs shooters, whom the “authorities” never entered into the NICS databases. I’m speaking of those who are in the databases, who pass by misspelling a name, changing their name, or just giving the wrong birth date.

And those are just the few felons who bother gaming NICS. Roughly 94% of firearms used in crimes were obtained through unlawful channels, completely bypassing NICS.

NICS doesn’t have a bloody thing to do with most criminals; those who do submit to checks can easily spoof it.

The only thing NICS is good for is delaying rights, and completely denying them, for honest folks.

And that is precisely the point.

I have heard well-meaning people call for 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law charges for those responsible for the violation of rights through improper denials, or for deaths when a sale is improperly allowed. In fact, survivors of Sutherland Springs (where the Air Force failed to report a felony-equivalent conviction, a domestic violence conviction, and an involuntary committal) trying to sue over it.

I wish them luck, but I’m astonished that the judge hasn’t dismissed the case already. There’s something in 18 U.S. Code § 922 that many people don’t seems to know about.

18 U.S. Code § 922(t):

(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Bureaucratese Translator: We can directly violate your rights — even get you killed — and you cannot hold us responsible for our failures, sucker!

That was built into the Brady Bill. Its original intent was to rape human/civil rights with total impunity.

And the Bradys brag.

As I said, I was briefly concerned about Codrea’s direction, which seemed odd for someone with whom I’ve been somewhat acquainted for years. My confidence in his respect for rights was rewarded.

Enforce existing “Intolerable Acts?”

The people who have been complaining consistently are the NRA’s “leaders.” They’ve made “enforce existing gun laws” a mantra many gun owners repeat unthinkingly, as if ceding to the status quo of infringements will dissuade the totalitarian lobby from enacting any new citizen disarmament edicts.

Substitute “Intolerable Acts” for “gun laws” and see how much amplification that gets from members and supporters. Instead, we got “bipartisan” kabuki.

Intolerable Acts, indeed. Any supposed “pro-gun” group or person in a “lather” over the lack of enforcement of a law meant to violate rights, is supporting exactly the same disarmament which sparked the American Revolution.

Is it any wonder the field of pro-PPYI NRA’s logo is red?

What color is your coat?

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