All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more

For whom does the NRA speak?

Good question. Bad answers.

While the reality is far more complex than Mr. Scott seems to “feel” (I won’t credit him with thought), the truth is that the NRA leadership does speak for very few of the 55 million to 120+ million American gun owners.

The lamestream media likes to pretend it does, out of laziness that lets them use “NRA” for “all those backwards, gun-clutching,  rednecks.” Until it suits their (and Scott’s) purpose to explain that gun owners really want a lot of infringements of their human/civil rights. Then that “radical” NRA is a bunch of out-of-touch whackos.

Let me tell you the truth about us non-NRA gun owners. A lot of us hate the NRA. Because the leadership are money-grubbing appeasers and compromisers, who use every new infringement they allow or even promote as an excuse for fundraising to “fight” that infringement.

The reality is that millions of the rest of us are armed, trained, and practiced. And we didn’t spend our hard earned dollars on guns and ammo so we could give them up.

What are you going to do about it?


[UPDATE] Fun With Biased Media

Last week, a Letter to the Editor ran in a local Georgia weekly newspaper. It was the usual pro-gun control drivel, written by a but-owner who really should have known better. “But” then, so should the paper, if informing the public — rather than imposing their own bias — was their goal.

Victim disarmers have local papers (not all, thank G-d), major metropolitan papers, television, Internet sites, search engines

And they’re still afraid to give us, armed with facts, a voice. Because an informed populace is one that would toss their “buts” out into the cold.

Dear Editor,

It is time, time past due, for our congress, state legislators and the National Rifle Association to step up into a rational approach to gun legislation.

In my opinion, we need universal background checks for any gun sale whether that sale takes place at a gun shop, gun show or private transaction. If a sale takes place without a proper background check and if a crime is committed with the weapon, then the seller, show buyer or buyers are all equally guilty of the crime under the law.

In addition, citizens do not need assault weapons, extended capacity clips, sound and flash suppressors, bump stocks, smoke grenades and similar military-grade systems.

Before some readers go off on me, I do not expect, recommend or approve of the government going door to door to gather these items legally purchased. Stop the sales and encourage voluntary surrender. Legal sales of handguns, rifles and shotguns for personal protection and sport should be encouraged through training and expansion of legal gun ranges.

Yes, I am a multiple gunowner, hold a valid carry permit and hunting and fishing license.

Yes, there are other issues on the table that need to be addressed, such as better security at schools and mental health screenings, but now our legislators and the NRA need to step up and get it done.

Jan Friedman
St. Marys

-sigh- It’s so easy to make unsubstantiated claims. It takes a little longer to counter them. Which is a problem with the Tribune-Georgian, as they have a 500 word limit on LTEs. Admittedly, my letter ran 829 words.

Jan Friedman has a wishlist of gun control laws. Sadly, the list indicates ignorance of facts. Let’s consider each item:

“Universal background checks”- More accurately — if awkwardly — referred to as a prior restraint on rights by requiring one to preemptively prove one’s innocence, such checks do not work. Approximately 96% of NICS denials are in error. It may be higher, as the ATF currently has a backlog of tens of thousands of appeals. They are also pointless since the vast majority of murderers, for instance, obtain their weapons through friends, family, and blackmarket sales, completely — and unlawfully — bypassing checks. They do this because 64% of murderers have prior felony convictions (and yet are on the street). 80% of guns used in crime are stolen.

Friedman proposes penalties for firearms used in crimes for which a check was not conducted. Given the cases of the Sutherland Springs, Washington Navy Yards, Charleston church, and Parkland shootings, perhaps the penalties should be on the authorities that never reported prohibited persons to NICS, allowing the criminal and crazed to pass checks.

“Assault weapons”- Except in certain jurisdictions, of which Georgia is not one, there is no such thing. Nonetheless, long arms (rifles and shotguns) are used in a tiny fraction of crimes. The federal “assault weapons ban” of ’94 resulted in no measurable effect on crime, because, before and after passage, weapons meeting that definition were so rarely used as to be lost in the stastical noise. Surely, we can find something more effective. Nor do I think making Geogia more like California is going to find widespread favor around here.

“Extended capacity clips”- Would that be loading stripper clips? En bloc clips? Be aware that stripper clips have nothing to do with weapon capacity, and en bloc clips’ capacity is inherently limited by the weapon design. A Garand with an “extended” clips simply wouldn’t function. Perhaps Friedman needs to brush up on terminology; I can recommend the “Gun Culture Primer” at

“Sound and flash suppressors”- Friedman either is confusing terminology again, or is lumping different devices together. A flash suppressor merely helps keep muzzle flash from obstructing the user’s view (and does nothing to “hide” the flash from other observers as some misinformed people have claimed). A sound suppressor does just that, preventing hearing damage while allowing a shooter — a hunter in the field, for instance — to maintain situational awareness; knowing who and what are around you contributes to safety. Suppressors do not magically silence a firearm as in the movies; a suppressed AR-15 firing 5.56 NATO is audible hundreds of yards away (which is why an unsuppressed firearm is so damaging to hearing).

“Bump stocks”- I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Friedman thinks “bump stocks” turn semiautomatic weapons into machineguns, or that they increase the firearm’s rate of fire; likely because CNN said so. Sadly for the news media, neither one is physically possible. Turning a rifle into a machinegun requires — illegal — modifications to the internal parts; replacing one stock with another stock cannot do that.

“Smoke grenades”- Jake’s Fireworks will be sorry to hear that. As am I, and Friedman is going to have to explain the rationale behind such a ban.

“Similar military-grade systems”- What “military-grade systems”? Semiautomatic rifles? Can Friedman point to any nation in the world that generally issues semiautomatic rifles to regular troops? That’s something of a hobby of mine, and I can’t find any country that has done so for decades. Most countries began phasing out semiautomatic rifles in the 1950s and ’60s, because they aren’t generally considered militarily useful.

Flash suppressors are common on military rifles; but they’re common… period. Sound suppressors? Not really, outside of special operations, as they add unwelcome weight and bulk to a infantryman’s already overloaded kit. Bump stocks? Tell you what; we should encourage potential opponents to equip their rifles with a stock that adds weight, doesn’t increase rate of fire, does increase malfunctions, and reduces accuracy (and for all those reasons, our military certainly doesn’t use them).

I freely admit, the military uses smoke grenades. So do young, supervised children on the Fourth of July. While I’ve heard of the occasional fatality from misued fireworks, for the life of me I can’t recall any case of death by smoke bomb on the holidays. Perhaps Friedman can help me out with that. (Sparklers, though: there was that one idiot who taped a few hundred sparklers into a tightly bundled pipe bomb and achieved an early meeting with his maker; but I saw that as Darwinian selection, evolution in action.)

America has anywhere from 55 million to 120 million guns owners who have not committed murder. We have as many as a quarter billion firearms that were not used in crimes. It’s high time victim-disarming gun controllers focused on the criminals, and stopped inflicting human/civil rights violations on the people who didn’t commit the crimes.

As expected, word length was a problem.

Your letter is measuring at 870 words. We limit all letter writers to 500 words. You’re welcome to revise and resubmit but your letter must be 500 words for publication.

Well, LibreOffice says 829, but what’s a few dozen words here or there. So I sent a new letter:

Dear Editor,

A common problem with Letters to the Editor in most newspapers is word length. When a writer pens a missive filled with misinformation, that letter can be short, consisting of nothing but brief, unsubstantiated
claims. Often blatantly false claims, which should have been caught by an attentive editor.

When an attentive readers does catch them, and wishes to debunk the misinformation, he has a problem. “Bump stocks turn gun into machineguns” is a mere six words. An explanation of why that is physically impossible, suitable for other readers who may barely realize there is a difference between semiautomatic firearms and fully-automatic, takes considerably more words.

Readers: Jan Friedman wrote a 228 word letter demonstrating a shocking lack of knowledge of firearms and related laws in someone claiming to be a CCW-licensed gunowner. The Tribune & Georgia did not want to waste 829 words on an explanation of why Friedman was factually wrong.

I am sorry that the Tribune & Georgian thinks short lies are preferable to actually informing readers.

(171 words, by the way.)

And the excrement hit the rotary atmospheric impeller. As my letter was critical of the paper itself, the editor apparently bumped it up. The next reply came from the publisher, Jill Helton.

>Mr. Bussjaeger,

I have read the letter to the editor that you submitted for publication and I have no problem publishing your criticism of our policies. However, I also want to be mindful of the claims you are making about Mr. Friedman.

The legal standard is applied to newspapers if that an editor cannot knowingly publish anything false in a letter to the editor. If we are aware of something that isn’t factual, we will correct it. I don’t claim to be a gun expert but I do not see where Mr. Friedman expressed anything factually incorrect. To me, these statements reflect his opinion. Please specifically point me to the statement or statements that you feel are factually incorrect. There other ways to make sure facts are clarified in the newspaper besides running a letter to the editor. Your letter references the statement, “Bump stocks turn (guns) into machine guns,” but Mr. Friedman did not make that statement in his letter. He only expressed that he didn’t feel citizens needed them.

I can appreciate that some topics are complex and take more words to explain, but we have to establish some limit on length because we do not have unlimited space and want to make sure we can accommodate anyone who wishes to write. If you have looked at other print newspapers, you will find our 500 words is quite a lot longer than what most other publications afford.

I do appreciate your readership and look forward to your response.

Thank you,

Jill Helton
Tribune & Georgian
P.O. Box 6960
206 Osborne Street
St. Marys, GA 31558

(912) 882-4927 office
(912) 882-6519 fax
(912) 577-1767 cell

Somehow, I doubt she was really looking forward to it. That cried out for a response:

Ms. Helton,

It’s your paper; you can run anything you want, or not. I’m good with that. Fortunately, I have editorial privileges at multiple national outlets. I just like to reach out to my local community.

> There other ways to make sure facts are clarified in the newspaper besides running a letter to the editor.

Since I’ve offered to write free columns for T&G, and wasn’t taken up on it, I’m unaware of these “other ways.”

> I don’t claim to be a gun expert but I do not see where Mr. Friedman expressed anything factually incorrect.

“In addition, citizens do not need assault weapons, extended capacity clips, sound and flash suppressors, bump stocks, smoke grenades and similar military-grade systems.”

Assault weapons: There is no such thing in the state of Georgia.

Extended capacity clips: While one could “extend” stripper clips, it would have nothing to do with firearm capacity, and would not function as well as a normal clip; the only ones I’ve were nonfunctional novelty items ridiculing gun controllers. There is no such thing as “extended capacity” en bloc clips because that would render a firearm inoperable.

Sound suppressors: Not generally “military-grade” because the military generally doesn’t use them. Citizens should have them for the safety reasons given.

Flash suppressors: Used by the military, and by a lot of civilians
around the world; again, partially for safety reasons as they prevent
obstruction of the user’s view (not to mention keeping the flame from

Smoke grenades: Also used by many people including children.

Bump stocks: Please note that I said I was speculating as to Friedman’s thinking. Please point out any error in my assertion that it is impossible for such to render firearms into machineguns (as is commonly claimed in the news media; note that the ATF Technical Branch came to the same conclusion as I on multiple occasions).

“Military-grade”: As used by Friedman, it has no meaning. No military in the world generally issues semiautomatic rifles (which are what are covered in those few jurisdictions that have defined “assault weapon”) to regular troops. The semiautomatic rifles used for a relatively few specialists in the US Army are _civilian_ firearms adopted by the military. The other items are mostly rarely used by the military, and more commonly used by civilians. I could have noted that some countries _require_ sound suppressors so as not to be an audible nuisance.

Additionally, I could have addressed Friedman’s “rational approach to gun legislation” by noting that doing something that already failed for ten years (The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,) may not be rational.

> If you have looked at other print newspapers, you will find our 500 words is quite a lot longer than what most other publications afford.

In fact, I’ve found 750 word limits to be more common, but again… your paper; run it as you wish. The last time I ran afoul of a supposed 500 word limit was in replying to a LTE in another paper than ran over 800. My reply was shorter than the original, but somehow exceeded the limit. Happily, I was able to run it in one of those aforementioned sites, where I suspect it garnered more readers anyway.

Yes, I really had offered T&G free columns at whatever frequency they might want, and any topic. That was well before this little adventure, and was not specifically about firearms or RKBA; just general interest stuff.

But oooh. Ms. Helton didn’t like that a bit:

Mr. Bussjaeger,

You are incorrect that we published a letter to the editor that exceeded the 500-word limit. We have long taken the position that the only fair policy is one that is consistently enforced. Obviously blogs and websites don’t have the same constraints on space that newspapers have, so I am not surprised that those publications have more liberal guidelines for space.

A letter to the editor or opinion column, as you can imagine, is actually the least preferable way to correct an error in the newspaper. We typically will correct errors of fact in the same part of the paper in which the error was made (in this case it would run on the editorial page, probably as an editor’s note). I am sure I could do it in less than the 300 words you used in your response to me and certainly in less than 800 words.

However, I still don’t see anything factually incorrect about Mr. Friedman’s opinion that people don’t need the items listed. His language may not be precise, but his point is clear. It sounds like you are objecting to his inclusion of certain items, but then that is your opinion and not something that requires a correction.

If you wish to contend that his opinion is not valid because he doesn’t know the appropriate terms for the items be listed or you want to argue against their inclusion in that list, then I would considering running that letter. If you want to throw stones at our editorial policies, go ahead. But I can’t let you libel Mr. Friedman in the process. It might be clear in your mind that you meant “bump stocks turn (guns) into a machine gun” as an example, but anyone who was not immediately familiar with Mr. Friedman’s letter would be left with the impression that those were his words. Then you characterize his words as “small lies” at the end of the letter. A lie is an intentional attempt to mislead and I don’t see any reasonable basis to accuse Mr. Friedman of that, based on his letter.

If you wish to submit a letter of 500 words or less that addresses the concerns I have raised, then we would consider running it.


Jill Helton

Friedman’s opinion is invalid, because it’s based on factually wrong claims. He’s entitled to an opinion, but he should expect to be called out on it.

The woman who thinks Friedman’s entire LTE was factually correct can “correct” it in 300 words or less? A newspaper publisher who thinks terminology — when proposing legislation — doesn’t matter?

My reply to Helton:

On 02/27/2018 11:30 AM, Jill Helton wrote:
> Mr. Bussjaeger,
> You are incorrect that we published a letter to the editor that exceeded the 500-word limit.

Now, you see? That’s exemplifies the problem. You see what you want, if it supports your position.

“…in another paper…”

That was in response to your statement that 500 word limits are common.

Your paper. Print what you want, or not.

Fact: “Assault weapons” do not exist in Georgia.

Fact: “Military-grade” is a meaningless term as used by Friedman.

Fact: “Extended capacity” en bloc clips are nonexistent, and the only extended stripper clips I have ever seen are nonfunctional novelties (one might as well call for the banning of Star Trek phasers).

You — and Friedman — may not _like_ those, but facts they are.

Again, your paper. Print what you want, or not.

If there is any further correspondence, I’ll add it below.

ETA: And she’s ba-aack…

“In another paper” also could mean another edition of my newspaper. I did assume that’s what you meant since it didn’t make much sense to me that you would expect equal space in the Tribune & Georgian because an entirely different publication chose to publish a long letter.

Which called for another snarky response.

Then it made no sense for you to reference your word limit to other papers.

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.



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

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, 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.



If the police are there to protect us

…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.


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!


“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.



This is a rights violator. Learn how to recognize them

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.



An editor/publisher gets it right

I’m accustomed to contacting reporters and editors regarding blatant lies, wrong terminology, and a lack of knowledge of the Constitution and existing laws. So it’s only fair to take notice when an editor seems to get everything right.

Meet Elaine Kolodziej, of the Wilson County News.

The Second Amendment and a common-sense approach to guns
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

Unfortunately, this is reality. Still, in most instances, the procedure is simply to wait the minutes for that policeman (the good guy with a gun) to arrive.

An unreasonable fear of guns often prevents the good guys from carrying guns. We have “gun-free” zones — in theaters, in churches, and in schools — making easy targets.
The issue is not just “the gun,” or even a specific type of gun, because there are millions of guns out there now that have not killed people and never will kill people. It only happens when an emotionally disturbed person — or a person intent on evil — gets a gun. We have laws that are supposed to prevent this from happening.

In last week’s school shooting in Florida, there were failures from within the established system of laws that allowed it to happen. The most egregious of those was that the FBI failed to follow protocol after parents and students reported the suspect.


Yes, I did write to her and thank her for getting it right. And in further correspondence she got even more right.

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.



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

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?


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.



Gun Controllers, Shut Up and Listen For a Few Minutes

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.


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!


Never Again

I posted a column on my personal blog yesterday. While it was about “gun control,” I thought the tone and expletives made it inappropriate for The Zelman Partisans blog, where I’m a guest. I was angry when I wrote it.

But overnight, a comment on it was posted that makes it germane to the mission of TZP.

In the past, I have posted here about gun people controllers’ screeching for vague or redundant “new” laws to violate human/civil rights. I ask these 18 U.S. Code § 241 lawsuit candidates to be specific as to what solutions they want imposed, instead of whining, “We need common since laws.”

Someone  got specific.

So, there’s the first solution. Universal healthcare. Make healthy choice the norm rather than being a country that waits until a sickness is unbearable before seeking treatment.

OK, that’s still a bit general, and it doesn’t seem to have worked particularly well in other countries.

There’s something to the shooters being straight white men. Hellooooo, elephant in the room.

Beg pardon? And what does this person suggest doing about those “straight white men”?

So, an actual second solution. Do away with the old guard. People over the age of 55, for the most part, are only looking out for #1.

Genocide. Ethnic cleansing. Eliminating everyone over the age of fifty-five.

Getting rid of everyone over 55yo? That’s roughly 75,000,000 people. Sheesh, Hitler and Stalin were pikers compared to Little Miss Genocide here. But that might make her “universal healthcare” workable; Dr. Zeke Emmanuel thought well of it; when advising on Obamacare, he proposed limiting and cutting off care when people got too old.

Personally, I’m strongly opposed to genocide, hence my affillation with The Zelman Partisans. But if that’s your thing, maybe you should consider other target demographics than “straight white men,” or everyone over 55. Take a look at the UCR data on killer age and race. If you’re into ethnic cleansing, you could start with the 5% of US counties that account for nearly all murders.

Pro Tip: If you want people to give up their guns, don’t tell them you want them dead.

Pro Tip 2: So long as evil like that exists, so will groups like The Zelman Partisans who work to make sure it can’t, that everyone can choose defense.

Never Again.

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