You may recall the 2022 school shooting at Robb Elementary, in Uvalde, Texas. If not, here’s a synopsis.
Police observed a scumbag actively shooting at people near the school.
Rather than do something about it, the officer radioed in for permission to act.
By that time, the shooter made it into the school.
Police — hundreds — responded to the scene, but did not engage the killer.
The killer spent a great deal of time in a classroom shooting 40 people; students and teachers.
One officer attempted to enter the classroom. Other officers forcibly stopped him.
After 77 minutes, the police finally went in.
The end result was 19 dead children and two dead adult victims.
It’s been nearly a year since I’d heard anything more about this. I assumed it had simply fallen out of the mainstream “news” cycle while they concentrated on “get Orange Man Bad.”
Nope. It turns out that the Uvalde prosecutor, Christina Mitchell, has been slow-walking and blocking the investigation into the police [lack of] response.
Which led to this little incident, which shows the Uvalde cops can respond quickly. When they feel like it (like when someone is criticizing them).
Brett Cross committed the horrific crime of telling a county commissioner, “My child is fucking dead!” He was immediately arrested, cuffed, taken out, and put into a police car. (Pardon the language, but I thought the exact quote leading to his arrest was needed.)
Why would these grieving parents suspect a cover-up, driving them to the criminal use of naughty language?
It took more than a year for prosecutor Mitchell to convene a grand jury.
No officer was called to testify until a few days ago.
The Texas Rangers hired a doctor to determine if any of the dead victims might have survived if the response had been quicker (at least four still had heartbeats when found).
Mitchell shut down the doctor’s part of the investigation, and didn’t allow him to review autopsy reports (apparently they’re still sealed since the grand jury is “investigating”).
That last part is key. A determination that any of the children could have lived if the cops had done their jobs would be the most likely basis for criminally charging the cops.
So long as Mitchell is covering for the cops, I hope she remembers to kill any investigation of where the money for Level IV vests for every single Uvalde officer went. They claimed to have the cash in hand four years prior to the school shooting…
… and then pleaded a lack of vests as the reason they didn’t go in against a murderer with a rifle. Can’t have anyone looking into that.
Yep, the Uvalde police can be real brave when an unarmed, grieving parent starts cussing.
Let’s do the enemies first, and I’m guessing there will be no surprises as to whom they might be, but some of the actions might not be as well known. Gosh I don’t know why major media outlets aka #FakeNews are laying off people left and right…/sarcasm font.
Biden choices in funding
While many nations around the world have stopped funding the antisemitic, anti-Israel UNRWA the Obiden crime junta actually has not. I list both, because one should remember, the goal of hamass is to kill Jews the world over, not just in Israel.
The United Kingdom and several other countries announced Saturday that they were suspending funding to the United Nations’ Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) after allegations that staff may have participated in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.
Canada and the United States announced Friday that in the wake of the allegations they would temporarily pause funding to the agency, with the State Department saying that it was “extremely troubled by the allegations.” The U.K., Italy and Austria also followed suit this weekend and suspended their aid indefinitely, according to NBC News.
But not the terrorist funding Obiden junta, oh no. See, words don’t mean the same thing on the left as they do to normal people.
Similarly, you may have read that the Biden administration has frozen funds to UNRWA, the United Nations operation in Gaza, after explosive and credible allegations emerged that a dozen UNRWA employees were directly involved in the planning and execution of the October 7 Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians. The Trump administration stopped funding this deeply corrupt organization back in 2018, then Biden quickly restored the money upon taking office. Now that this move has blown up in his face, Biden has belatedly and apparently temporarily stopped the cash flow to UNRWA. But as we saw with the Houthis climbdown, there’s a catch:
Wow.@JerylBier discovered that the State Department saying they were pausing funding to UNRWA only applies to new commitments. They plan to continue to use US taxpayer money to fund current projects despite evidence of the group abetting terrorism. https://t.co/zXIfqouXVV
— AG (@AGHamilton29) January 28, 2024
On Friday, in response to allegations that employees of the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) had been involved in Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, the State Department announced that it had “temporarily paused additional funding” for the United Nations agency. The funding pause, however, applies only to new and additional funding, not funding already obligated before the pause went into effect on Wednesday, a State Department spokesperson told Pluribus. When asked for details on what obligations would and would not be affected by the pause, the spokesperson directed Pluribus to a fact sheet released by the State Department on January 16, 2024…The fact sheet reports that funding already committed or obligated to the UNRWA for fiscal 2024 for work in the West Bank and Gaza totaled $51 million as of January 16. Although the State Department did not directly answer questions about the amounts or the timing involved in distribution of funds, the spokesperson stated that “we are pausing any new or additional funding. Contributions to UNRWA that were not obligated as of January 24 are suspended, contributions to UNRWA obligated prior to this date remain in effect.”
Huh, color me shocked. It’s like the Obiden junta supports terrorism for both hamass and the Houthis…Course, it’s only money…taxpayer money, it’s not like it’s coming from the Biden crime family or anything.
1. UNRWA is a jihadist terror cult. For 70 years, it’s indoctrinated youth to hate, kill, and be disposable pawns in a battle to destroy Israel and beyond.
2. Thousands of it’s staff took part in or supported Oct 7th atrocities. This is a direct result of the billions in “aid” it spent on hate indoctrination and militarizing Gaza.
3. Instead of resettling its refugees, UNRWA forces them and all their descendants to be refugees forever. It indoctrinates kids to believe they must destroy Israel to ever have a home.
4. This perpetual refugee status is unprecedented and different than how all other refugees are treated – including the 100 million aided by UNHCR, the UN’s main refugee agency.
5. Israel is 0.3% of the Middle-East and is here to stay. The UNRWA jihad fantasy must end now. The rest of the region (10,000,000+ sq miles) should welcome its brethren.
6. In the past century, there were 1,000,000+ Jewish refugees from Arab countries. None are now seen as “refugees” or to have a “right to return”. They’ve all resettled in Israel or other countries.
7. Israel grants all Jews a “Law of Return” to their indigenous homeland. Most Arabs in Israeli territories came from Egypt or Jordan, which should offer them similar rights.
8. Funding UNRWA destroys the lives of Arab children who become indoctrinated with hate and violence for life. It destroys the societies where it operates, and brings forever conflicts to the region.
9. UNRWA is irredeemable. It’s aided and abetted the worst ideologies and atrocities for decades. Both Hamas and UNRWA must be eliminated for there to be a chance at real peace and stability.
Lousy organization correct? Not people you’d trust or want to be associated with, correct? Oh but if you’re the Obiden junta, they’re just the people you want.
Sure, I feel safe now
I’m sure all Americans will be as safe with the NSC director as the Israelis were with Maher Bitar at UNRWA. Sure of it…..
But the threats to innocent Israelis comes not only from Gaza, but from Judea and Shomron (Samaria) as well as the arabs there are pining to have hamass move in and “govern” them as well. No, not for the elevated standard of living they brought to Gaza, but because their charter is all about killing Jews.
So America will help her ally, correct? There is a real threat in Judea and Shomron to the people living there.
Diligently following a master plan worked out over 10 years ago, the Palestinian Authority is laying claim to large tracts of Israeli state land through illegal building. Resembling Potemkin villages, many structures stand empty, hollow, windowless, alone or clumped together. The land grab has been hugely successful because Israeli countermeasures have been so feeble, Jews living in the area tell JNS.
So the Jews living there need to be well armed to defend themselves and their towns. And the Obiden junta’s response?
The Biden administration is once again holding up licenses for selling more than 20,000 US-made M16 rifles to Israel on the charge that they would be distributed to “violent extremist” settlers, Axios reported Wednesday night.
….
The sale is crucial not only to the settlers, who are only scantily armed and whose able-bodied men are serving, and dying, in Gaza. Israeli communities inside the Green Line, in the south, the north, but mostly in the center, are still vulnerable to terrorist attacks and deploy local standby response teams made up of local residents. They receive their weapons and training from the Police, and their need far outweighs the supply.
The left, in Israel and America despise Ben Gvir, he loves Israel and Israelis! Oh shock! Oh horror of horrors!! He’s handing out rifles to people in Judea and Samaria!
I heard a great definition of “settler violence” recently. I think it’s a lot like “gun violence”. If a settler is walking down a road and sees an arab stealing a sheep and the Jew throws a rock at the thief, that’s “settler violence”. If the Jewish farmer (settler) is walking down the road and sees an arab stealing a sheep and the arab throws rocks at the Jewish farmer that is also “settler violence”. See how that works? In America if a concealed carry holder shoots the criminal that was trying to kidnap or assault them, that too is “gun violence”.
And honestly, there aren’t as many of those as one would have hoped….but coming from a Hollyweird actors, that took some courage.
‘You are fighting against forces of regression, that are anti-modernity, anti-western civilization, that are determined to throw back society to medieval times.’
Now this one will be a shocker, John Fetterman! The terrorist, murdering and raping supporters of hamass showed up apparently at Fetterman’s abode and started in with their indoctrinated chant. Fetterman (a non-Jewish member of the DNC) responded by going out on the roof of the building and waving the Israeli flag. I. AM. IN. SHOCK!! This required an extra cup of coffee to revive me.
And lastly, this very moving song comes from the group Five For Fighting, it’s called “OK”. This is not a Jewish group, this is a group that looked around at the moral decay that has been exposed in America by the acts of October 7th and those around the world following it. October 7th ripped the masks off many many things, and it has become a time for choosing. Apparently this member of the music industry sees things are not “ok”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDJXo2Gn-ww
Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The term dictatorship comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather than ancient dictators. Ancient philosophers’ descriptions of the tyrannies of Greece and Sicily go far toward characterizing modern dictatorships. Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.
I look at today’s political climate and I can’t escape the idea that this is where we are. Small group? Politicians and activist judges are trying to keep former President Trump off the ballot. Whether or not you love or hate him, people should have the chance to vote for the candidate they want to lead the country. That’s how it is suppose to work in a Constitutional Republic. Demoncratic policies are yielding the results one would expect from policies created and implemented by a bunch of college educated/indoctrinated marxists. Lower standards of living, shortages, poverty and crime are common in those sorts of 3rd world countries run by the left. The left is the left is the left, the world over. Now I think many people suspected on day one that Biden wasn’t really the President when he was signing all those executive orders and he said he didn’t even know what he was signing and an aide snapped at him “Just sign it”. Really? That’s how you talk to the President of the United States of America? No, this is Obama’s third term.
Extraordinary powers, like the power to force people into dangerous medical experiments. Like the power to shut down business. Except for the demoncratic politicians of course. Like the power to shut down free speech of those who tried to warn about the danger. Like the power to persecute those who question anything the government doesn’t want to answer for. Say, for example the validity of an election. Now demoncrats have been contesting elections for years. Stacy Abrams still claims she’s governor. A gaggle of them object every time a Republican wins the Presidency. Nothing ever happens to them, but they do deny the election.
Uses force or fraud to gain power? Goodness knows there was plenty of evidence that the elections of 2020 were not clean, and people attempted to make that knowledge known at the time it was happening the media #FakeNews either ignored it or lied about it. Then came the Georgia runoff election for two senators. As nothing had been done to fix the voting problem in Georgia, predictably the communists won. The group that documented multiple cases of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election even made a documentary. True The Vote recently won their case in Georgia about the senatorial runoff race against Stacy Abrams, video about 8 minutes https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/judge-issues-2020-election-challenge-ruling-facts-matter-5558563
Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote and Greg Phillips were the leads in the documentary 2000 Mules that did extensive documentation on the voter fraud of the 2020 election. It’s well worth watching, they explain their search techniques and have mountains of video proving their point. And they have been persecuted by the government for doing that. We’ll revisit this in a minutes.
But onto the propaganda aspect. The marxist talking heads called the “media” are having kittens by the batch about how if President Trump wins the election he will shoot demoncrats that don’t clap at his inaugural speech. Why democracy (rule of mob) won’t be safe! The only way to save democracy is by demoncrats destroying it. At least according to them. They can only save democracy by preventing a large swath of the public from voting for the candidate of their choice. They have equally pearl clutching guests on who solemnly intone that former President Trump can’t possibly hold office because of the 14th Amendment. An Amendment created to keep the members of the former confederacy from holding office after the civil war ended. But I don’t believe it was ever actually enforced. Since the mass formation psychosis operation known as “covid” the media has a successful playbook and they are sticking to it. But the establishment media has possibly overplayed their hand this time as they cover for the Obiden crime junta. People see that the costs of living are soaring, the Obiden junta is redistributing money from Americans to illegal invaders, crime is going up and the ever present attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans has not abated one whit. Many of “We the people” don’t like living under a marxist regime. Not one bit. But perhaps the lame-stream media is losing it’s credibility. People, I don’t think, believe them much anymore. Although msnbc’s loyal 7 listeners still tune in and hang on every word, and cnn’s 12 are still showing up to hear whoever hasn’t been arrested for some indecent act yet.
So what to do to win an election with an unpopular, corrupt, incompetent, demented candidate?
Going to the part of a dictatorship about terror, intimidation and removal of civil right, that brings us back to January 6th. A day the left loves, loves to talk about, loves to celebrate, a day made just for them. And it was.
Representative Clay Higgins, I just love this guy. Former military, former law-enforcement officer he has a no nonsense style and doesn’t let up. He’s sort of like a pitbull with glasses. Plus I like to listen to him talk.
I’ve mentioned before the documentary done by the Epoch Times that extensively covered the day with film obtained from people who were there as well as independent journalists. They interview people that were there and tell their stories, they have video of the murder of Ashli Babbitt and Roseann Boyland, killed in cold blood by Michael Boyd and Lila Harris. Things demented Joe Biden still lies about. I don’t know if it’s free to watch or not. After all this time it may be. https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary-4596670
It’s pretty recently released so it may or not be free to watch.
The FIB is ramping up the terror and intimidation as they’ve said now they are going to go after people that weren’t even in the Capitol, but were just there. They’re being very public about it. They want the terror and intimidation, they want U.S. afraid to speak out, to donate to, work for or attend a rally. Their message is don’t even think about it.
Which brings me to this. Greg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht are not only fighters for truth, justice and the American way of life, they are also trying to help the January 6th political prisoners held by the Obiden crime junta. The January 6th political prisoners put together a video, it’s a time line of events that happened that day. Greg says it’s a little rough, but considering they made the video mostly by themselves, it’s amazing. It’s being hosted by open.ink set up by Greg. There is a huge collection of material there, not just this video and it’s well worth checking out. It’s a bit over 1 hour and is free to watch. From open.ink
J6: A True Timeline gives the audience a never-before-seen timestamped blueprint for the events of January 6, 2021, as they unfolded in real time. No other film to date fills the gaps or tells the story chronologically the way this film does. The film is also different from anything produced to date because a small group of protestors, some who are J6 defendants, have been the ones to collect hours of footage to help contextualize the events of the day. The film was funded and produced entirely through small donations and tens of thousands of volunteer man hours. The hope is that the film will provoke all Americans to be more curious about the true timeline of January 6.
I think we can see who is behaving like a dictator and who isn’t. Please pray for America, for many reasons and please pray for our January 6th political prisoners and their families.
For years, I’ve warned about the dangers of precedents; in laws, bureaucratic regulation, and judicial. My personal ball got rolling back inthe 1990s with the passage of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. CALEA was passed to “help” LE catch criminals, by making it easier to tap phone calls.
The Communications Assistance for law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a statute enacted by Congress in 1994 to require that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for information. CALEA is intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance while protecting the privacy of information outside the scope of the investigation.
Sure. But it morphed into requiring the capability to monitor 10% of switch traffic at the same time; ten percent of all phones in the country. And remotely, so LE doesn’t even have to come to the switch office and physically tap a single line. It was expanded to include Internet traffic.
What could possibly go wrong? Who could have foreseen that someone later would use those tools to monitor thousands of innocent Americans, or even spy on the opposition’s election campaign?
Well… “Who,” other than myself and thousands of other privacy advocates.
The Colorado Supreme Court just gave us a real doozy of a precedent: it just declared Donald Trump to be an “insurrectionist” ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot.
Love Trump or hate him (and I’m no great fan), the “reasoning” and “process” behind this decision is frightening; enough so that I’ll never travel to or through Colorado again.
The CO supreme court majority (there are three dissenters with some self-awareness) simply declared Trump to be guilty of insurrection. They deliberately and specifically denied the need for an actual charge of 18 U.S.C. § 2383 insurrection, a trial, evidence, or conviction. They specifically denied any requirement for Fifth Amendment due process. The accusation — in a civil case that Trump was not a party to — is all it takes for a life sentence of ineligibility to hold office or appear on a ballot.
Because Amendment 14, Section 3 is magically “self-executing.”
There is no Fifth Amendment in Colorado.
If this were to go to the US Supreme Court (and Trump says he’ll appeal), we might well learn there is no Fifth Amendment in the country.
But let’s look at the flip side of this insane precedent, under the almost-worst case scenario*:
Imagine down the road we end up with a hard-core right-wing administration; a Republican president perhaps, with as little respect for the whole Constitution as many current Republicans (don’t forget who saddled us with CALEA, PATRIOT, and bump-stock bans in the first place). Let’s say President Smith ran on a platform plank of doing something about the ATF, winning hearts and minds of American gun owners.
On the one hand, we have an agency whose specific job is to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
On the other hand, we have a precedent that says Constitutional amendments are automatically “self-executing,” and punishments for violation of the 2A don’t require indictment, trial, evidence, facing accusers, or defense. And one day, President Smith Tyrant simply send US Marshals to every ATF office in the country to round up every agent and employee, and drag their sorry asses off to the gulags, never to be heard from again.
Or… Federal Election Commission, meet the self-executing First Amendment.
You can probably think of one or two others that could use a dose of Constitutional self-execution.
So to speak.
* The worst case scenario would be SCOTUS making this a national precedent with the current administration, which proceed to rape the country faster and harder than it already is.
This bill purports to ban the distribution of 3D-printer files used to build firearms.
Purports.
“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm…
Now if he’d just left it at that, he’d merely be a constitutional idiot. But let’s look at the rest of that sentence
to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”.
Yes, Markey still thinks 3D additive manufacturing printers start with unfinished frame/receivers.
Still? Perhaps you’ve gotten a sense of deja vu. Markey rode this short bus two years ago.
“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”.
Look familiar? Two years on, and he still can’t figure out the difference between additive 3D-printing and subtractive CNC machining (like a Ghost Gunner mill that does complete unfinished frames/receivers).
Or maybe it’s idiocy with a large dose of insanity.
You know, if Markey — his staffers, rather — followed opposition sites like The Zelman Partisans perhaps he’d figure out just why his bill cannot do what it purports, even if it magically passed into law. But I give this attempt no better odds than S. 2319, which whimpered and died in committee.
And yes, I still giggle at this part.
over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web
I still haven’t found a “World Wide Web” that does not operate over the Internet.
Ah yes, another day which will live in infamy. Goodness know people who love citizen control seem to be drawn to it. I’m passing this along from a list I’m on, those that can drop a note, please do so.
The Department of Justice has put forth a proposal amending ATF regulations to implement the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that broaden the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms which would require that individual to acquire a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
This proposal defines, among other things, the following to be dealers:
Anyone who sells or offers for sale a firearm within 30 days of purchase.
Anyone who sells or offers for sale firearms that are new or like new in their original packaging.
Anyone who makes or maintains records in any form to document firearms purchases.
Any violation of this regulation would result in asset forfeiture, fines, and/or imprisonment. This proposed regulation is essentially a back door attempt to establish a national gun registry, which is illegal. A national registry is the first step for gun confiscation.
Before this proposal can go into effect there must be an opportunity for citizens to make comments for and against it. The Comment Period ends December 7th.
I am asking each of you to submit your comments objecting to this egregious proposal. You can do this by going online to Regulations.gov and referencing Docket Number ATF 2022R-17 or by mailing a letter (postmarked December 7th or before) to:
Helen Koppe
Mail Stop 6N-518
ATF Office of Regulatory Affairs
99 New York Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20226
Attached is a sample form letter containing objections you could put forth. Please read and select certain portions to state your objections. Do not copy anything verbatim, put it in your own words. There is a lot in there to pick from.
Remember to be polite and respectful.
The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to defend.
RE: ATF 2022R-17 To whom it concern: On behalf of __________, a _____ of __ (members, participants pick one), we are writing to object to several provisions of the proposed 27 CFR Part 478. We operate what you would consider to be a gun show. The proposed regulation goes far beyond the language and intent of the new provisions of law set forth in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”). In particular the proposed rulemaking is looking to 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(C) and (22) for support for the definitional provisions being supplied for presumptions as to those “engaged in the business” of selling firearms and selling fire arms with an intent “to earn a profit” as set forth in the proposed regulation. 18 U.S.C. §921 (a)(21)(C) provides: The term “engaged in the business” means–
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms; (emphasis added) Please note this provision states to predominantly earn a profit. The presumptions put forth in the proposed regulations presume that the sale of one firearm for a sum more than the person paid for it constitutes a sale for a profit and requires the person to be a licensed firearms dealer. We submit that this interpretation is beyond the statutory language to “predominately earn a profit”. We also submit that it fails to take into account any other expense or time value of money associated with the sale of the firearm, which is a part of any normal calculation of “profit” and hence is beyond the proper basis of an interpretive regulation. Many of our ________ (members, participants) expend substantial sums to attend our events. These costs would be factored into any reasonable definition of “profit”. But more importantly the presumptions put forward are contrary to the statutory exceptions as to who is a dealer “but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms”. (see above) Many of our table holders are engaged in sales for their personal collections. But the proposed presumptions do not recognize this exception. Further, the proposed regulations conflate together “sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection” and “for a hobby”. The two provisions are separate. The “for a hobby” provision allows a person to sell, exchange or purchase firearms on an occasional basis for a hobby, without being required to obtain a license. The “for a hobby provision” and the “for a personal collection” provision are two separate and distinct items. These provisions relate back as well to the provision of “to predominately earn a profit”.
Therefore, the person who purchases or sells firearms occasionally as a collector or for a hobby is not a firearms dealer, and not required to be licensed. The proposed regulations do not account for this and go beyond the statutory mandate. The proposed regulations provide: Section 478.11 provides in part:
Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they may be conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; at one’s home; by mail order; over the Internet; through the use of other electronic means (e.g., an online broker, online auction, text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises. * * * * * Engaged in the business— * * * * * (c) Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker. (1) A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of the person’s personal collection of firearms.
* * *
Whether a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms requiring a license is a fact-specific inquiry. Selling large numbers of firearms or engaging or offering to engage in frequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity. However, there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement. Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. For example, even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence (e.g., where a person represents to others a willingness to acquire more firearms for resale or offers more firearms for sale), may require a license. A person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in
firearms in civil and administrative proceedings, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when the person— a. Sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms; b. c. Spends more money or its equivalent on purchases of firearms for the purpose of resale than the person’s reported gross taxable income during the applicable period of time;
* * *
(iv) Repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms—
i. That are new, or like new in their original packaging; or ii. Of the same or similar kind (i.e., make/manufacturer, model, caliber/gauge, and action) and type (i.e., rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol, frame, receiver, machinegun, silencer, destructive device, or ‘other’ firearm);
* * *
(4) Where a person’s conduct does not otherwise demonstrate a predominant intent to earn a profit, the person shall not be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms when the person transfers firearms only as bona fide gifts, or occasionally sells firearms only to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for the person’s personal collection or hobby. The underlined language deviates substantially for the statutory provision of selling firearms to “predominately earn a profit”. Selling or offering to sell firearms and being willing to buy does not in and of itself evidence that this is being done to “predominately earn a profit”. Most who collect firearms or engage in the sale of firearms for a hobby are willing to buy or willing to sell, but this in and of itself is not establish by a preponderance that they are doing so to “predominately earn a profit”. The provision that a person who spends more money
than their reported gross taxable income on purchasing firearms for resale, has no basis what- so-ever in “profit”. Profit is based on a sum in excess of all costs. Not gross income. Further,
many retired people have a small gross taxable income compared to their assets. This provision is not in conformance with the law.
The provision prohibiting sales of firearms that are like new in their original packing or of a similar kind by manufacturer, model, caliber and type of gun is ludicrous. Virtually every collector or hobbyist focuses their efforts on specific manufactures and types of firearms. They are for the most part devoted to something. Further, like new in original packing firearms are what is the most sought after of collectible firearms. These provisions do not constitute reasonable presumptions by themselves of being engaged in the sale of firearms. Several of the provisions relating to an “intent to predominately earn a profit presumption” are erroneous. The provisions provide in part:
Predominantly earn a profit. (a) The intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection. * * * (b) The intent to predominantly earn a profit is a fact-specific inquiry. A person shall be presumed to have the intent to predominantly earn a profit from the sale or disposition of firearms in civil and administrative proceedings, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when the person— (1) Advertises, markets, or otherwise promotes a firearms business (e.g., advertises or posts firearms for sale, including on any website, establishes a website for offering their firearms for sale, makes available business cards, or tags firearms with sales prices), regardless of whether the person incurs expenses or only promotes the business informally; (2) Purchases, rents, or otherwise secures or sets aside permanent or temporary physical space to display or store firearms they offer for sale, including part or all of a business premises, o r table space at a gun show, or display case; (3) Makes or maintains records, in any form, to document, track, or calculate profits and losses from firearms purchases and sales; The provisions presume intent to profit without any proof of profit, and shift the burden to the seller of the firearms to prove otherwise and subject the seller to civil forfeiture of their firearms as well 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(1). The changes in the law did not provide that a person could not advertise a firearm for sale, put a price tag on it, place it for sale on the internet, or rent a table at a gun show. The law specifically provides for occasional sales for gun collectors and hobbyist. The proposed
presumptions prohibit all such sales except maybe by word of mouth. These provisions are not in conformance with the law. Gun shows and collector club meetings with sales and purchases by non-dealers were not prohibited by the BSCA. Had that been the intent of the BSCA it would have so stated. Had it stated such, much opposition would have come forth. It is not proper to take actions by regulation that go far beyond what Congress provided in law. We respectfully submit that the provisions in paragraph (c) setting forth presumptions of “engaged in business” and the revisions setting forth presumptions of “intent to earn a profit” are not supported by the language of BSCA, and should not be adopted. Sincerely,
Because a three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld, 2-1, Illinois’ “assault weapon” ban in Bevis v. Naperville (which is actually six separate challenges to “assault weapon” bans in Illinois, consolidated), and mangled BRUEN in the process. To do this, the lying bastards started with the BS “weapons of war” argument. And went downhill from there.
Honestly, this decision reads like something you might expect from the Ninth Circuit.
We find substantial support for the proposition that the Arms protected by the Second Amendment do not include weapons that may be reserved for military use.
Because obviously AR-15s are just like “a nuclear weapon such as the now-retired M388 Davy Crockett system, with its 51-pound W54 warhead.” Seriously; they equated semi-auto rifles to nuclear warheads.
And to support that position, Easterbrook and Wood lied about Supreme Court rulings, starting with MILLER, 1939 which said exactly the opposite. This Court resorts to citing the dissent to magically turn military use into common, lawful civilian use, and pretends HELLER said that.
But after Heller, we know Miller does not address a weapon’s military use. Because the National Firearms Act of 1934 targeted the firearms most commonly used by criminals and gangs, Miller’s “lawful use” language relates to criminal use, not military use.
The term “lawful use” doesn’t even appear in MILLER. It had no “lawful use” test. It only used a militia use test:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
HELLER addressed civilian use of weapons not specifically acknowledged as militarily useful, and asked if possession of those by civilians could be banned. The court concluded that civilian weapons in common, lawful use could not be banned; that there is an individual right to them. And that the right to those not necessarily military-style weapons was subject to reasonable limits.
HELLER didn’t overturn MILLER; it built on it, and added to it. Those judges damned well know what MILLER and HELLER really said. The fact that they twist the words, and outright lie, about them proves their intent was not innocent.
Now that Easterbrook and Wood have pretended that “weapons of war” aren’t 2A-protected, they have to “establish” that AR-15s are military weapons.
Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude).8 Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun.
How do they know?
The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways.
Sure, an illegally modified AR-15 is is the same thing as an M16, just illegally mounting a 120mm cannon on a Trabant makes it an Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tank.
Speaking — currently — illegal modifications, these jokers used a timely example.
The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon.
Personally, I would have skipped that one, since the same day they issued this ruling, SCOTUS — facing a multi-Circuit split on the bump-stock ban — granted cert to Garland v. Cargill, challenging the ban.
So… they’ve lied their way into declaring that the 2A doesn’t protect “weapons of war,” and that AR-15s are in that class. Now they also had to deal with BRUEN‘s general, historical legal tradition test, which they handled with still more verbal manipulation and selective editing.
The analysis then moves to second step, which calls on the “government [to] justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. The Court predicted that this second step would be relatively easy in some instances, when historical analogues are easy to find. But in other instances, it recognized that the task would be challenging. It singled out “cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes,” which “may require a more nuanced approach.”
These two would have you believe that if something is new enough, then general, historical legal traditions don’t apply. But what they left out from BRUEN is this part.
Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.
Yes, the Constitution and the Second Amendment still apply to “new” things like the five decades-old design of the AR-15. Some restrictions on how they are used might be constitutional, but a ban isn’t.
As for “dramatic technological changes” that those early folks could never imagine…
James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.
Heck, an early machinegun was pitched to the US War Office in 1812, and patented in 1813 — during Madison’s presidency (and was a refinement of a 16th century machinegun).
Yet never once did Madison stop and say, “Whoa, guys! We didn’t have any of this new shit in mind. The Second Amendment is just for muskets.”
Speaking of “patented”, not only could the Founders envision dramatic technological changes, they counted on it and deliberately promoted it.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Yes, liars, the BRUEN test applies to AR-15s. And I challenge you to provide a citation of the nation’s general, historical legal tradition of banning civilian possession of “weapons of war.” Bear in mind you’ll have to explain away another pesky provision of the Constitution.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
In case the judges are unfamiliar with Letters of Marque pay attention, too):
Letter of marque, the name given to the commission issued by a belligerent state to a private shipowner authorizing him to employ his vessel as a ship of war. A ship so used is termed a privateer.
Not only was civilian ownership of real weapons of war not banned, they — again — counted on it. Muskets, rifles, cannon, warships; all of them. Moreso, in the case of muskets or rifles, they required private possession of those “weapons of war.”
Granted, these robed morons did cite some legal “traditions” that they would have you believe support a ban on an entire arbitrary class of firearms. But what they came up with were a series of local ordinances barring discharge of muskets and cannon in town, some isolated bans on Bowie knives, or openly carrying certain types of firearms.
They couldn’t find anything in relevant history of a general nature; and remember that BRUEN specifies that isolated local laws don’t count:
The bare existence of these localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry.
There’s nothing of a general law citation until the National Firearms Act of 1934, 143 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment. So my challenge stands.
The third member of the panel, Judge Brennan sanely dissented with his crazed colleagues. While he also addressed procedural issues with the passage of the state ban, he hit on the issues I’ve covered; albeit more formally and politely. Like me, he took issue with Easterbrook and Wood’s mangling and misinterpretations of HELLER and BRUEN. He also objected their “It’s military, so it isn’t protected” position: arms are arms, they’re all protected; some can be regulated but not banned.
I liked this bit that Brennan included, about the whole scary “AR-15s are weapons of war” thing:
The AR-15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semiautomatic.
That’s a point I’ve been raising for years. None do; the last country I found using them switched to select-fire assault rifles three decades ago.
All in all, I look forward to this being appealed to SCOTUS. I’m sure Clarence Thomas will insist the Court take this up, just so he can judicially bitch-slap Easterbrook and Wood for shredding BRUEN and HELLER.
I ran across a peculiar column last week, but I held off commenting on it.
Mass Shootings: If No One Else Will Offer a Solution, I Will
While everyone is screaming to ban “weapons of war” or whatever the ridiculous phrase du jour is, nobody is offering any kind of solution. We keep saying we need to “have real conversations about mental health,” but we never do. So if we’re not going to ban firearms or have a kumbaya drum circle for mental health, and if no one else is going to offer a solution, I will.
That’s right, yours truly has a policy idea that might move us in the right direction. Because I am going out on a limb here, I’ll go ahead and say that I welcome other ideas, influences, and perspectives. All I ask is that we keep the disagreements civil when we comment down below. Lastly, I use the word “firearm” to cover any weapon that relies on a firing pin, as well as ammunition with a percussion primer. With this definition, make, model, or capacity does not matter.
The reason I held back is this proposal confused the heck out me. It appears at PJ Media, which is a fairly conservative outlet with — usually — a firm grounding in the Constitution and reality. Ashley McCully appears to be a regular contributor.
By McCully’s proposal is anything but Constitution- and reality-based. Before I tore her a figurative new one, I considered the possibiltiy that this is satire. The law she proposes reads like a far-left Dimocrat wishlist; it’s a thoroughly impractical, immoral, and unconstitutional rape of rights.
On the other hand we have the column’s URL: a-modest-proposal-to-prevent-mass-shootings-and-preserve-gun-rights-n1738194
That certainly hearkens back to the very model of literary satire. But was she writing satire, or did an editor pick that URL to poke fun at her “serious” proposal?
I attempted to contact her, but heard nothing for days. So I’m going assume that she meant what she said.
Here goes.
Regardless of how the firearm is purchased, gifted, bequeathed, or obtained, the individual taking receipt of the firearm must present a written statement from a licensed mental health professional endorsing the requesting individual as mentally stable and competent enough to possess a firearm.
That’s an interesting take on the Second Amendment, apparently now reading A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who have been medically approved to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Up yours, Ashley. And you might want to run your idea past Clarence Thomas, because that requirement is a massive fail on the BRUEN test of “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
She’d be hard pressed to find and such law in our national tradition, seeing as how the very field of “psychology” didn’t exist until 1854, and didn’t get rolling in the United States until around 1875. And medical licensing? That wasn’t really a thing until the 1870s. And the first actually restrictive medical licensing law was passed in 1881, and only upheld by the Supreme Court in 1889.
In the event an individual is deemed mentally unstable and/or incompetent to possess a firearm by a licensed health professional, then it will also be deemed reasonable to search any and all property of the individual by law enforcement for the sole purpose of identifying and seizing deadly weapons, to include firearms. The written diagnosis by a licensed mental health professional will be declared suitable for probable cause for a warrant to be issued.
There are a couple of problems here. Begging permission to obtain a firearm, and failing to get that permission, is probable cause to ransack a home for the firearm he didn’t get?!
And currently, it would be a HIPAA violation for that licensed mental health professional to voluntarily forward that personal health information, the diagnosis, to the cops. You’ll need to amend 45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(i)), too, Ashely.
But that’s moot; because no sane mental health pro is going to issue certification.
If the requesting individual commits any crime with a firearm, the license of the endorsing mental health professional will be suspended throughout the criminal investigation. If the requesting individual is found guilty of any crime with a firearm, then the endorsing mental health professional may lose their license permanently and may be subject to criminal charges.
Note the lack of specification of time frame or what firearm is used. If someone gets a gun, lives peacefully for 30 years, then sudden decides to unlawfully pull a trigger — maybe of a gun that some other doc signed off on — the original doc loses his license and goes to jail. Both, in fact. What doctor is going to assume that perpetual liability? Since it would effectively be impossible to get approval, this effectively bans private ownership of firearms.
Speaking of liability…
Regardless of relationship, if a firearm is used to commit any crime by any person, the registered owner of that firearm will be held criminally liable.
If I jump through McCully’s hoops and get a gun, I would be criminally liable if a burglar broke into my house, shot me, tore my gun safe out of the floor, ripped it open with a plasma cutter, took one of my guns, and used it to rob someone else. Ashley’s liability language makes no exception.
Up yours with a prickly pear, Ashley.
Oh, and did you notice that “registered owner” bit? Yep, her wanna-be law presupposes registration. Language in other parts make it clear that the registry she so blithely assumes would include currently owned firearms, not just those bought under her new police state process.
I’m going to guess, like Hollywood writers who have cops checking gun registrations in southern states, McCully lives in a state that does have registration and stupidly assumes everyone else does, too.
Hint, Ashley: most of the country does not register firearms and owners. And in some states, Georgia and Florida for example, creating a registry is serious felony.
I’m skipping some other — mostly liability — points, and going straight to the finale. Which either solidly establishes this as satire, or Ashley as bug-f##k nuts.
Anyone connected to an individual who has been deemed mentally unstable and/or incompetent enough to possess a firearm and has had at least one firearm or deadly weapon seized by the State under Title II, including but not limited to family, friends, colleagues, roommates, associates, or acquaintances, must provide a secondary verbal and written affirmation that they will be held criminally liable for any crime committed by anyone involving the firearms for which they are registered owners.
You may need to read that a couple of time to parse it out.
If you know someone in passing — a neighbor down the street with whom you exchange greetings — that is a prohibited person for mental reasons…
…even if you don’t know it…
…you must swear verbally and in writing (redundant, that) that you will be held criminally liable if said acquaintance… well, see the earlier burglary/plasma cutter scenario.
Ashley’s proposal doesn’t include any mechanism for identifying and contacting the prohibited person’s family, friends, colleagues, roommates, associates, or acquaintances, or anyone “connected to” and sharing their personal legal and medical history. So I’ll be damned if I know how you’re supposed to know to make that “affirmation,” much less to whom.
I would really prefer that is satire, but the fact that McCully wouldn’t respond doesn’t look good.
Are you interested in building your own firearms at home, but aren’t really sure how to get started? Not to worry; wethe New York State Policehas your back.
In an effort to crack down on so-called “ghost guns,” the NYSP inadvertently put together the perfect beginner’s how-to manual:
It has all the info you need to start. Descriptions of the technologies available (80% receivers, CNC milling, 3D printing), along with suppliers for the various tools, and complete parts lists and suppliers.
It tells you what hand tools you’ll be wanting. It even tells which types of plastic filament are best suited for firearms and the model of 3D printer you choose. It shows you basic steps you’ll be following.
NYSP didn’t mean it this way; it was supposed to be an internal tyranny tool. But someone leaked it, and we aim to keep it leaked.
The person of interest behind the deadly mass shooting in Maine is reportedly a trained firearms instructor believed to be in the Army Reserve, according to law enforcement sources in the state.
Robert Card, 40, was stationed out of Saco, Maine and reported “hearing voices” and threatened to shoot up the National Guard Base where he was stationed, the sources said.
Ignorant loudmouth Shannon Watts of Mom’s Demand Bloodshed naturally blames Maine’s allegedly lax gun laws; specifically a lack of a 72 hour waiting period to purchase a firearm, and a lack of a “red flag” law.
I blame something else. Card himself, of course; but…
According to law enforcement, CARD recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME. CARD was also reported to have been committed to mental health facility for two weeks during summer 2023 and subsequently released.
So… they have a crazy guy threatening to kill people. He gets committed to a psych ward…
And then let loose. Maybe that last part was a mistake.
Card was reportedly a firearms instructor; my guess is that he probably already had firearms, and a 72 hour waiting period would not have prevented this. Keeping the dangerous guy locked up would.
So what if Maine lacks a n-due process “red flag” law? Anyone who had been threatened by Card — that is, anyone and everyone assigned to that base — could have requested a perfectly normal protective order and requested any firearm be removed .
And why would they be removed, aside from the death threats? “[H]ave been committed to mental health facility.
If he did have to buy his firearm for this slaughter, that wouldshould have prevented him from buying one from licensed dealer. (And likely from people who knew him and knew he’d gone nuts.)
Someone was supposed to report Card’s committal to NICS. If the military committed him, well, we know the military has a major reporting problem.
It’s a little early to be blaming a lack of gun laws for this.
Something else that I hope to hear more about is Card’s auditory hallucinations. That’s common in schizophrenia. But as a retired nurse mentioned, 40 years old is an odd time for schizophrenia to pop up. It usually shows up much earlier in life.
Other things can cause hallucinations: Lewy Body Dementia, brain tumors. But something I ran across recently came to mind.
One of the adverse effects of the ChinCOVID pseudo-vaccine that’s been showing up ishallucinations. Doctor’s have noted it, and it shows up in studies. As a reservist apparently on active status (assigned to the base), there’s a good chance that Card received the ChinCOVID inoculations.
But that’s just speculation. Card is not yet in custody. But once caught (or his body found), maybe we’ll learn more about what caused his break.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
