Category Archives: authoritarian swine

authoritarian swine, gun control

“Assault Weapons” Ban of 2018, Part who-the-heck-knows-anymore

2 Comments

Here we go yet-a-fricking-gain.

Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons
Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) formally introduced a bill on Monday to ban assault weapons.

Here are the relevant definitions from the bill:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:”

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.”

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:”

Plus the usual long list of specific arms regardless of cosmetic characteristics.

Please note that these “assault weapons” need not actually have any of those additional characteristics, only the “capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following.” Could you mount a forward grip? Could you replace the barrel with a threaded one?

Of course, these clowns aren’t quite ready for the next revolution. They’ve grandfathered arms possessed by the cutoff date, because they bloody well know that they can’t quite get an outright ban without too many dead confiscation squad cops; cops who’ll refuse their suicidally unconstitutional orders. But that’s OK.

This is just Pelosi’s slippery slope. They expect an outright ban on the tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of arms later, once they think they’ve conditioned us to accept it.

No. Your move, tyrant-wannabes.

Brian Anderson, writing at DownTrend.com, thinks, “This proposed legislation has zero chance of even reaching a vote. Republicans, who are in charge in Congress and respect the Constitution, are not going to let this war on our rights out of committee.”

I think Anderson needs to lose the rose-colored glasses. There isn’t more than a tiny handful of Republican’s who aren’t police-state cheerleaders. My guess is that this, or one of the similar “bans” currently on offer can pass.

But “good luck” with implementing that, and getting honest Americans to play “fair”.

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 bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine

If the police are there to protect us

2 Comments

…which they are not, per court ruling…

Then let’s give them some incentive to do the job they’re being paid by taxpayers to claim they do.

This can be done with federal law enforcement easily enough. Any Congress that can pass Obamacare can easily pass a law to

  • Make the pay rate for all personnel with law enforcement powers equal to the federal minimum wage. Across the board. Every single one. At any level, supervision or management.
  • Include a clause that any union contract specifying otherwise is null and void upon expiration, and must be renegotiated (you can keep your pay if you like your pay; heh) to meet US Code requirements. No contract extensions not compliant with the standards.
  • No minimum wage LEO may carry a firearm. Ever. Aren’t they citizens, people, just like the disarmed rest of us?
  • Those LEOs who wish to carry a firearm only on duty shall qualify on each and every type of firearm they might carry on duty, and requalify semiannually. Firearms-qualified and equipped LEOs will earn a 15% bonus.

Statistically, law enforcement doesn’t make the top ten list of most dangerous jobs. Some list, it doesn’t make the top twenty. Why should their base pay be higher than a roofer?

You think that’s tricky? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

  • As above, LEO pay is fixed at minimum wage, or minimum plus 15%, but…
  • Any unarmed LEO who goes into harm’s way (as anti-exemplified by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office) to protect a citizen(s) earns a cash bonus for that action. If needed, full medical coverage for any injuries, appropriate death benefits, and 100% college scholarships for any children.
  • Any armed LEO who goes into harm’s way earns a lesser cash bonus for that action. If needed, full medical coverage for any injuries and appropriate death benefits.
  • Any armed LEO who fails to go into harm’s way to protect a citizen(s) will lose all armed-officer pay and bonuses perpetually. This does not mean he must search out such incidents, but merely respond appropriately when one does occur in which he could have acted.
  • Disputes arising from whether a LEO’s behavior met the above standards or not will be settled by a board of arbitrators consisting of non-LEO civilians, but advised in a non-binding fashion by a person(s) will law enforcement experience but no conflict of interest in any particular case at hand. The board shall have the power to award additional bonuses (beyond those specified above) should they determine the LEO’s behavior was especially exemplary.

By judicial decree, cops don’t have any responsibility to protect individuals; they “protect” society simply being there. So do minimum wage unarmed security guards. This proposal does not attempt to change that lack of requirement; it incentivizes the behavior we expect of good cops. LEOs who can’t deal with this probably shouldn’t be LEOs. They hire on with Securitas (and arrange their own unofficial bonuses) or flip burgers.

Or roof houses.

Naturally, this federal law wouldn’t apply to state/local officers. It would be up to locals to decide if they want something similar for their tax dollars. But federal grants, equipment, and civil asset forfeiture (pessimistically, I don’t expect that to go away, even if this proposal passed) sharing would be dependent upon local compliance with these guidelines.

Let the folks doing mundane, boring, unexceptional work be paid as such.

Let the heroes be rewarded as such.

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.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

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

“Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.”*

“By the way, bump stocks, we’re writing that out. I’m writing that out myself, I don’t care if Congress does it or not, I’m writing it out myself, OK? You put it into the machine-gun category, which is what it is, it becomes essentially a machine gun.”

— President Donald Trump, February 26, 2018

“Machinegun” is defined in statutory law. Short form: a firearm that fires more than one round per trigger operation.

If that can be changed by executive order, instead of congressional legislation, then everything is a machinegun waiting for the pen-stroke.

What can he — would he — do with that pen?

* For our younger historically-challenged MSD readers: Bubba Clinton advisor Paul Begala, The New York Times, July 5, 1998

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. Truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

This is a rights violator. Learn how to recognize them

1 Comment

Meet Harvey Sloane:

Mitch McConnell beat me by scaring people about gun control. Nothing has changed.
On Sept. 14, 1989 , a disgruntled 47-year-old pressman of Standard Gravure, a printing company in Louisville, entered the plant at 8:30 a.m. He carried four semiautomatic weapons, a revolver, a bayonet and several hundred rounds of ammunition. He shot 20 people, eight of whom died. He then killed himself. This was the deadliest mass shooting in Kentucky’s history.

Let’s clarify some things.

A man on Prozac, who had been diagnosed with mental illness and had a history of multiple suicide attempts, had stated his desire to kill someone at work. He had made deaths against people at work on multiple occasions. Armed with a semi-auto AK-variant, a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol, a S&W .38 revolver, two MAC-11 semi-auto pistols, and a bayonet, he killed 8 people at his former workplace, and injured 12, before killing himself (successfully, at last).

His family sued the Eli Lilly company, maker of Prozac, claiming the company failed to disclose adverse side effects contributing to the killer’s actions. When they obtained information on previous disclosure failures on the part of the company, Eli Lilly cut a secret deal with the family. The deal was concealed from the judge.

Harvey Sloane, failed senatorial candidate, does not blame the mentally ill man who should have been a prohibited person, nor the people who failed to report him. He does not blame Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of a drug with now known side effects that include violent impulses. He does not blame Sig Sauer, the pistol manufacturer. He does not blame Smith & Wesson, the revolver manufacturer. He does not blame the bayonet, nor its manufacturer.

He blames “assault weapons,” a class that did not even exist at the time, and does not now aside from a few states.

He believes that firearms purchase background checks do not include those prohibited due to mental illness, while refusing to acknowledge that when that happens it is a failure to report on the part of governments.

The ’94 “AWB” passed. It didn’t work. Firearms meeting even the expansively vague federal law’s definition were so rarely used in crimes before, during, and after the law’s effective dates, that no one could find a statistically significant effect, good or bad.

This is how to ID these victim-disarming rights violators:

  • They don’t blame the perpetrator.
  • They invent new things to blame.
  • They ignore facts.
  • Being unable to learn from historical fact, they demand a repeat of that which never worked.

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.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Politics, Sellouts and traitors

[UPDATE] That’ll be our first one-term president in a while

2 Comments

I wish I could be surprised, but even before Trump began to look like a serious candidate– well before he got the R nomination — I warned that his new-found verbal respect for RKBA was belied by a long anti-RKBA history.

Trump pushes ban on ‘bump stocks’ — devices that turn weapons into ‘machine guns’
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he has recommended that “bump stocks” — devices that let semi-automatic weapons fire hundreds of rounds per minute — be banned.

Trump signed a memorandum recommending that Attorney General Jeff Sessions propose regulations that would declare that bump stocks are illegal because they effectively turn legal semi-automatic weapons into outlawed machine guns.

I told you the fix was in.

Age limit for buying AR-15 assault rifle ‘on the table’: White House
The White House said on Tuesday setting an age limit for buying AR-15-type assault rifles, the type purchased legally by a teenager who shot dead 17 people at a Florida high school last week, was under consideration.

It will be interesting to see how they define the restricted firearms. Will they include California-compliant “non-assault weapon” ARs, bolt-action rifles, revolvers, pistols, and pump-action shotguns?

ETA:

White House on ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban: ‘We Haven’t Closed Doors on Any Front’
NPR’s Mara Liasson asked, “In 2000 [President Trump] did support an ‘assault weapons’ ban. What is his position now?” She followed her own question by asking if President Trump supports “reinstating” the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapons” ban.

CNN reported that Sanders responded by saying, “I don’t have any specific announcements, but we haven’t closed the door on any front.”

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.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

Gun Controllers, Shut Up and Listen For a Few Minutes

1 Comment

The Parkland high school mass murderer appears to have been a prohibited person, unable to lawfully purchase firearms, who was never reported to NICS.

Sound familiar?

Yes, I know; you’re enjoying your dance in the blood of the Parkland innocents. This looks like the perfect time to call for more restrictions on rights because people are upset. You think this one proves people can’t be trusted, and more laws will fix everything.

After all, who really needs a gun when the government is there to protect you, eh?

I’ve already discussed why you shouldn’t be targeting the tens of millions who didn’t do it. But I know those innocent millions are exactly who you’re afraid of (“Gee, what do they want to do to us, that they need us unarmed?” he wondered rhetorically.)

And NO. Genocide and ethnic cleansing really wouldn’t go down the way you hope. Drop it.

So let’s look at all the legal loopholes that need plugging; the ones you pretend allowed the Parkland horror to happen. Let’s see how well government protected those students and faculty.

Asshole T. Chumbucket (what; you thought I’d give him the notoriety he wanted by naming the SOB?) had quite the history according media reports.

  • He had been suspended from school multiple times for violence, acts of destruction, and weapons violations; incidents going back at least as far as the seventh grade. He was apparently never arrested.
  • Law enforcement was called to his home 39 times in seven years, for threats, harassment, vandalism, and window-peeping. He was apparently never arrested.
  • He was expelled from school for another act of violence. He was apparently never arrested.

Offhand, I’d say the first few dozen failures here were not “weak” gun laws. I’m looking at law enforcement and the school system. That probably explains why both the sheriff and school superintendent are trying to deflect attention by screaming for… Yeah, more gun control laws.

But wait! as the commercial narrator said. There’s more.

The Sun-Sentinel obtained a Department of Children & Familes (DCF) investigative report from September 2016 after the murderer-to-be cut himself on Snapchat.

“Mr. Cruz has fresh cuts on both his arms. Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun. It is unknown what he is buying the gun for,” the DCF report reads.

But that didn’t really raise any red flags. Of course not. Why worry about a violent and self destructive guy getting a gun?

[The shooter’s mother] said her son did not have a firearm. She said she had confiscated his air gun because he didn’t follow house rules about only shooting it “within the backyard and at targets.”

And the little fact that his mother didn’t even trust him with an airgun still didn’t raise eyebrows.

Apparently DCF joins the line of government agencies getting paid to protect and declining to bother. Maybe Florida taxpayers should skip paying and just burn the government’s “share” for heat; less administrative overhead, and they’d get something for it.

But here’s where things get interesting. The investigation by DCF came after chumboy turned eighteen, after he became a legal adult, after he normally wouldn’t be under their jurisdiction. Why?

Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.

How does one go about getting “classified” as a “vulnerable adult” in Florida? Does some concerned citizen merely call DCF, who immediately declares him such?

Well, they can in certain emergency situations. Even though the cutting was done, that might count…

…but they came out to investigate because he was already a “vulnerable adult.”

Let me tell you how one gets classed as a “vulnerable adult” in Florida:

If the department has reasonable cause to believe that a vulnerable adult or a vulnerable adult in need of services is being abused, neglected, or exploited and is in need of protective services but lacks the capacity to consent to protective services, the department shall petition the court for an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Petition the court? And how does that work?

1. The court shall set the case for hearing within 14 days after the filing of the petition. The vulnerable adult and any person given notice of the filing of the petition have the right to be present at the hearing. The department must make reasonable efforts to ensure the presence of the vulnerable adult at the hearing.

2. The vulnerable adult has the right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. The court shall appoint legal counsel to represent a vulnerable adult who is without legal representation.

A hearing before a judge, with advance notice, and legal representation. Remember those; it’s important.

(d) Hearing findings.–If at the hearing the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the vulnerable adult is in need of protective services and lacks the capacity to consent, the court may issue an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Apparently a judge adjudicated the asshole to be mentally incompetent due to mental illness. TZP members saw where this was going some paragraphs back. I’ll explain for similarly mentally incompetent media types and other victim disarmers.

18 U.S. Code § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
[…]
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution

So A. Fishbait was a prohibited person, unable to lawfully possess a firearm. To be a client of DCF he had to be to be mentally deficient.

So why wasn’t he reported to NICS, which could then have denied his rifle purchase? Did Florida simply not know about The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007?

The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS, and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended, to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.

In case you media and other rights violators have forgotten, another bucket of chum was able to kill 32 people and wound 17 more (at a school) because Virginia authorities neglected to report him. NIAA fixed that “loophole” that let governments screw up.

We don’t need more human/civil rights-violating laws. No “assault weapons” bans. No licensing, registrations, “improved” preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraints.

We need the schools, cops, DCF, and whoever the heck was responsible for reporting to do the freaking jobs they’re sucking taxpayer money to currently not do.

Let’s close the government “I’m too lazy to bother” loophole. Then the FBI’s “What? Multiple credible reports of a named threat? I’m too busy going to Starbucks” loophole — which likewise needs to be closed by closing the FBI — wouldn’t have mattered either.

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.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

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, Elsewhere, gun control, gun grabbers, hatred of Jews, mindset, Politics, self defense

Your……Call

4 Comments

I recently ran across some article that just seem to fit together. And while the country wasn’t America, the discussions are certainly ones that have taken place in America.

The article that caught my eye was in an Israeli newspaper. I know, you’re dumbfounded, right?

It’s about a group of German women that are rising up against the government. Quite similar to the American protest in that it’s women protesting their treatment at the hands of men. While American women walk around with silly pink hats on their heads and offensive signs to show how liberated and feminist they are, they protest against (mostly it seems) about the election of a man who “said bad things”. Mind you they do this marching around fully in the daylight and in the open. They know as long as they don’t break any laws they won’t have any problems. So you can tell they are very brave in speaking out. Yes, I’m being sarcastic #NoForcedHijab. Even that paragon of courage Linda Sarsour didn’t go to Iran to support her sisters as they protest having been forced to wear a hijab.

No, the German women’s protest is quite different.

Women? Yep
Protesting something male related? Yep
Signs and youtube videos? Yep
Silly hats and offensive signs? Nope
Protesting something legitimate? YES, oh HECK YES

Ahh, think we’ve found the difference. German women rise up

‘Because of your immigration policies, we soon face a majority of young men who come from archaic societies with no women’s rights.’

……….

A study commissioned by the German government using data from Lower Saxony concluded that migrants “may be responsible” for most of Germany’s recent rise in violent crime. More than 90% of the increase was attributed to young male migrants.

“Because of your immigration policies, we are facing soon a majority of young men who come from archaic societies with no women’s rights. You knew that, and you accepted it. You knew that, you accepted it, and you abandoned us. You sacrificed us.”

A Pew study found that the Muslim population in Europe will continue to grow in the coming decades even if migration to the continent is completely halted.

……

“It can’t go on like this. Pepper spray and pocket alarms are already the basic equipment of European women. Going jogging has become the most dangerous sport for us.

The average decibel of the average pocket alarm is 120 db. How loud is that?

110 Extremely loud Rock concert, chainsaw
120 Human voice at its loudest, police siren
130 Thunder
140 Pain threshold First Monday of the month siren from close by

So, it’s kind of like screaming in terror, except maybe the alarm can do it longer? Especially if the throat screaming for help is cut or a hand/s is/are clapped over the mouth doing the screaming for help.

Pepper spray, the other piece of standard equipment. How far will it spray? How long? Depends.

Regular pepper spray that probably most of the German women, and indeed European women sound like they are carrying are about a half ounce and will spray from 5 to 35 seconds with a reach of 5 to 12 feet. And you hope the wind isn’t against you. But you can get a foam spray.

You could go with bear pepper spray. With that you will get almost a 8 oz can, but it while it will only last 8 seconds, it will go 16 feet. Yeah, I’m not liking this one either.

What if the wind is against you, or more come after the fight ensues?

Now I’m sure they would prefer you do the “civilized” thing in a country that is becoming most uncivilized towards women. Just “call the police”. From this report the time till your emergency call is answered is 3 to less than 30 seconds. Response time seems to range from 8 to 15 minutes, a quarter of an hour. You know, a quarter of an hour is a long time to wait while you scream at the top of your lungs for help and watch as your pepper spray is empty and your attackers are now pissed. And still there, just out of reach of the pepper spray. They in the meantime have used their cellphones to “phone a friend”. Think you will still be there 12 minutes later when the police arrive?

Which brings me to the next column I would like to reference, Up In Arms: German Small Arms Ownership Soars 85% In Under 2 Years

Two years after your chancellor decides to admit over 1 million undocumented middle-eastern immigrants to boost the economy and instead gets a series of terrorist attacks in return, this is the outcome: “Germans are taking up arms of angst.”

………

There is a growing feeling that the state cannot sufficiently protect its citizens and therefore they must protect themselves. Recent cuts to the police force contributed to the problem.

No kidding? Ya think?

But Germany has very strict gun control laws, to keep everyone safe, of course. So they can pretty much only buy non-lethal weapons. But as in America, there are those that are telling the women that getting a gun is not the way to go.

However, Holger Stahlknecht, state interior minister in Saxony-Anhalt, isn’t convinced. He worries about the current trend and warns that arming oneself with small weapons can lead to a false sense of security. “Obviously, people believe they are buying safety with a small gun license,” he said.

“However, this sense of security is deceptive, since these weapons could escalate a situation and could even be used against the owner.”

Well, #1 Old Holger Stahlknecht is a government minister. And as I recall from another column I did, the government doesn’t appreciate anyone speaking out publicly against their “poor refugees”. So. And #2, Old Holger IS a man. Not so sure he is in sync here with the women who fear attack from his government’s policies.

Now I’ve heard the 9mm is called the European .45, so lets just look at the 9mm caliber cartridge. Looks like it’s roughly 980 to 1600 ft/sec.

Huh, how about that. And it doesn’t matter which way the wind is blowing, it’s unlikely to end up in your face. There is a good chance once you produce the delivery mechanism they may decide to go for easier pickings. Like maybe Old Holger, or Nanny Angela Merkel? Oh, wait no, they have government paid for security. Just women those in the video don’t.

The German government killed 6 million Jews, and 5 million dissents, gays, gypsies and assorted others. Now the German government chose to import millions of people that threaten the lives, liberty and way of life in Germany. Maybe some day the German government will learn, not all things are the same. Maybe some day they will learn to tell good from evil, right from wrong. Today apparently, isn’t that day.

There are a variety of ways to respond to the threats, it’s your call.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers

Door Kickers

1 Comment

I’ve noted the theoretical problems with door-to-door weapons searches. Let’s see how that works in the real world.

Firearms Recovery Operation Held In Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz County law enforcement agencies teamed up with agents from the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms for a two-day operation on Tuesday and Wednesday to recover guns owned by individuals who are prohibited from possessing them, according to the Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Chief’s Association.

In this case, California started with a gun owner database, which they compared to other databases to see who suddenly became a prohibited person. So, unlike my worst-case (for the cops) “belling the cat” scenario, they should have a good firearms hit rate. Right?

So how did it go? Multi-agency teams. Two days. 47 addresses.

One bust. For one gun.

At that rate, it’s going to take them 426 days just to clear the current backlog of 10,000 newly prohibited persons they think they know about. Never mind all the folks continually being added to the list even as they work.

But — as the infomercial says — Wait! There’s more.

One bust. For one gun. Perhaps that means that Californians are just really compliant with gun people control laws, unlike the old days of 20 years past when the state saw a whopping 2.33% compliance rate with registration, and those prohibited folks properly disposed of their firearms. Except…

California does have registration. And universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks. If they properly disposed of their guns, that should have been in the state’s records and there’d be no reason to send the confiscation squads.

Are state records that bad? Did 46 out of 47 people lawfully transport their firearms out of state? Did 46 out of 47 unlawfully transfer them within the state? Did the cops simply not try very hard?

Was 1 out 47 simply a slow learner? Or maybe he didn’t even know about that protective order.

If it took California 2 days to not find 46 registered weapons in the hands of 46 registered gun owners, how long will it take to fail the other 9,953 (and counting) times?

On the bright side, this may identify another challenge to California’s obscene gun laws. You may recall that New York City was forced to end their warrantless “stop and frisk” program not merely because it was unconstitutional. Courts have long upheld unconstitutional practices if the government could demonstrate an overriding need for the sake of public safety. The judge in the NYC case tossed “stop and frisk” because, according to the city’s own data, it didn’t work, obliviating their “public safety” argument.

California’s restrictions and confiscation attempts don’t work either.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

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, gun grabbers

Stung

3 Comments

So the talk of the town is the GAO’s Internet Firearms Sales report.

That would be the one — commissioned by anti-human/civil rights activists Elijah Cummings [D-MD]and Elizabeth Warren [D-MA] — in which the GAO attempted to purchase guns on the Internet while posing as prohibited persons.

They made 72 attempts on public sites. All failed. Twice, they thought they’d succeeded only to discover they were scammed; folks took their our money and never shipped guns.

Go figure. Gun owners who often are gun owners because they want protection against bad guys are generally not going to knowingly provide guns to bad guys.

Well, they had to come up with something for Congressional weasels, so they went to the “Dark Web,” to sites specifically set up for illegal black market transactions. They skipped the part about claiming to be prohibited persons.

And still only succeeded twice, out of seven attempts. I have no doubt that Cummings and Warren will present that as a 29% success rate rather than 2.5%.

If it’s really that high. One firearm they purchased was billed as an Uzi converted to full-auto. The report notably says, “If the firearm meets the NFA’s definition of a machine gun, the seller’s prior possession of the Uzi, and the shipment to our agent, likely violated federal law.” Which means they aren’t sure they got what they ordered.

Interestingly, while the report mentions prices paid in other online stings, they neglect to tells us how much they paid for an old AR-15 or a dubiously “converted” subgun.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

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

Do they care?

4 Comments

A comment was left on the post Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

Carl… do you actually think any rational explanation of anything will influence the bureaucrats? Do you think that any of them CARE in the least? If they were the least influenced by reality, none of this would be happening.

That could almost be a template for things I’ve been told over the years. Strike out “bureaucrats” and insert “HOA,” “mayor,” “councilman,” “congresscreep,” “senator,” “reporter,” or “pollster.” It’s always pointless trying to reach these folks because they don’t care what us peons think.

I disagree.

I think there’s some value to outreach. Occasionally you reach someone whose mind isn’t closed and is willing to learn. Not the politicians and bureaucrats, of course.

But there is one bit of “reality” that will influence them. Sheer numbers.

So the periodic reminder that there are millions of honest gun owners who won’t play their game gives them pause. Given the blatant animosity towards the Constitution from people like Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, Reid — and so many others — I think the only reason they haven’t attempted outright bans and confiscations is that there are too many us, too well armed. It’s too late to “bell the cat,” and they know it.

So they keep trying just a little bit at a time; testing the waters.

And we remind them that the waters still hold piranha. With lots of big teeth.

Do the bureaucrats of the ATF care about the facts in my rulemaking comment? Of course, not. But they do care that hundreds of gun owners per day let them know we’re still watching for those dipping toes.

That said, I strongly suspect we’ll initially lose the bump-fire battle because the ATF is notoriously stupid. They classified a shoestring as a machinegun. They thought no one would notice that they were overriding NICS to sell guns to felons and traffickers with the intent of arming Mexican cartels.

I think they’re looking at potential revenue, too. The request for comments asks manufacturers and retailers how many bump-fire stocks are out there. I’m sure they’re thinking, “Wow! Hunnerds of thousands of new NFA devices that people will have to fork out two hunnerd bucks a pop to keep, if we grandfather existing stocks. That’s millions in new revenue! Oak desks for everyone! Vegas ‘conferences’!”

Initially. They think bump-fire stocks and trigger cranks are a small niche that we won’t fight for. They’re wrong, because the proposal is too broad. As my comment indicates, this redefines almost anything as a machinegun, including fingers.* They aren’t dipping a toe in the water this time; they’re sticking their foot in, and they’ll lose it. They’ll be forced to back off just as they did with the full-auto shoestring.

Because they do care. About our numbers, if not our words.

* If you don’t think the vaguely broad scope isn’t intentional, you haven’t been paying attention. If bump-fire stocks were all they were after, Feinstein’s bill could have read like this, or the ATF could have issued the same ruling:

1. It shall be unlawful to possess, transfer, or use an accessory

a. which attaches to a semiautomatic firearm to allow the firearm to be held securely which reciprocating forward and back with the purpose of using that motion to engage and disengage the trigger with no movement of the trigger finger.

b. which engages and operates the trigger of a firearm multiple times for each individual operation of the accessory; this includes, but is not limited to, trigger cranks or motorized gloves.

2. Accessories which do not result in multiple trigger operation per operation of the accessory are not prohibited. Non-prohibited accessories include, but are not limited to,

a. release triggers which allow a firearm to be fired when the trigger is released.

b. set triggers which allow the trigger to be partially pulled to reduce trigger weight for the final operation of the trigger

c. fire on pull and release triggers which operate with separate motions of the trigger finger.

d. replacement light weight triggers to improve accuracy of the firearm.

e. replacement recoil springs.

f. replacement mainsprings.

g. replacement light weight bolts or other reduced mass parts which lower the mass of the firearm.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail