All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

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

The Question Which Must Not Be Answered.

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

How?

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

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

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

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

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

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

-crickets-

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

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

-crickets-

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

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

-crickets-

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

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

-crickets-

Parroting talking points is easy. Policy is…

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


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Half-Witt or Full Liar?

Oregon Rep. Brad Witt has a little accuracy problem.

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

What about raising the age for other constitutionally guaranteed rights?

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

That again. Ignorance, or deception?

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

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

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

Brad

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

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


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Tammy Baldwin: Idiot, or 18 U.S. Code § 241/242 conspirator to violate rights?

Tammy Baldwin: Middleton shooting shows need for gun restrictions ‘consistent with the Second Amendment’
The Middleton workplace shooting that injured four people Wednesday shows the need for gun-control measures “consistent with the Second Amendment,” such as requiring universal background checks and banning so-called “bump stocks,” U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said.”

Starting with “bump stocks”… the asshole didn’t use one. In fact, he didn’t use a rifle, much less a semiautomatic rifle.

He used a handgun. And if he tried to mount a stock on that, he’d either need a tax stamp, or be breaking another existing law.

Getting the tax stamp would be problematical since he was a prohibited person, having been involuntarily committed.

As for universal background checks preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint, there seems to be another problem.

Officials say ATF has “run into roadblocks” about the weapon used in the shooting at WTS Paradigm. Chief Foulke said aspects of the weapon are making it difficult for them to trace. The chief said there is “something unique about that weapon” and whose hands it has passed through.

Something about the weapon itself that makes it untraceable? Sounds like the serial number was removed. Obliterating a serial number is unlawful under existing law. Transferring a firearm without a serial number is unlawful under existing law. At a guess, it’s stolen; whether he stole it himself, or bought the stolen weapon through a black market sale.

Either way, I doubt he would have submitted his prohibited self for a background check. 90+% of criminals using firearms in the crimes don’t.

Baldwin, when you figure out a way to get the criminals to obey your gun-control laws, let me know. Until then, STFU about further violations of the rights of people who didn’t do it.


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


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Defense” – Sexism and Job Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good day,

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

1. How much range time will the class include?

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

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

Thank you for your time.

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

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

Michal Ochkie

No guns. Because it’s for women?

Apparently.

Carl,

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

Hope this answered all of your questions.

Thanks,

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

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

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

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


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

What color is your coat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s false positives, which brings us to…

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

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

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

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

And that is precisely the point.

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

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

18 U.S. Code § 922(t):

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

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

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

And the Bradys brag.

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

Enforce existing “Intolerable Acts?”

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

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

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

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

What color is your coat?


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Cameron Kasky: Unrepentant Rights Violator

Parkland punk Cameron Kasky has gone on Fox News to admit that he’s seen the light, and regrets the nasty human/civil rights violations he has demanded with his March for Our Lies (not a typo).

Co-Founder Of March For Our Lives Cameron Kasky Explains The Mistakes He’s Made & Why He Left March For Our Lives
But, looking back on that it’s like you said, you touched off on this very well in the intro, I’m not going to kick myself for it because I’m 17. Despite the fact that I thought I did at the time, I don’t know everything.

And was too complacent to check on the lies he was fed. Some folks are tentatively buying it: “it looks like he’s capable of humility.”

‘I Realized that I was not the expert people were making me out to be.’ Changed his mind after talking to gun owners… Feels shame for how he attacked Rubio…

I don’t.

I left the March. I’m off the board. I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn’t do it without me I would not have done that

He actually wants the victim-disarming lies to continue; he just doesn’t to be caught at it himself. He still believes in the innocent-blaming, victim-disarming mission. He just got tired of being personally called on his BS.

His new excuse is that he isn’t really very bright or an expert, so it isn’t his fault he repeated lies.

Look, I have some very intelligent friends. Some friends who can intellectually run circles around me, but I’m not the expert in pretty much anything.

He just didn’t know any better. Except back when he claimed he did.

If you need proof that I’ve been this annoying in the political realm since day one, ask @davidrubinoff, the man who taught @charlie_mirsky and I in third grade.

He’s been politically obnoxious for 9 years, and only now that Everytown et al made him into a public figurehead, subject to ridicule from actual knowledgeable people, he has learned better?

Then why not disavow his March; why count on them to carry one without him? He still wants your rights violated. He simply doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to do it himself.

The only thing Cameron Kasky “changed his mind” on is getting criticized.


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Georgia teachers must be even worse than I thought

The two main contenders for governor in Georgia are a guy who talks a good enough game on firearms-related human/civil rights that I might’ve voted for him if he weren’t a Republican (long story), and a gun-grabbing lunatic of a Democrat.

But I repeat myself.

Let’s settle our stomachs with a little Pepto and take a look at Democrat Stacey Abrams.

Ms. Abrams believes that “gun safety measures are essential to keeping Georgia’s schoolchildren safe.”.

“Commonsense gun safety measures, including repealing campus carry, are essential to ensuring our schools are safe,” said Abrams’ spokeswoman Priyanka Mantha.

In Georgia, allowed “campus carry” is restricted to licensed adults 21 and older on college campuses. Not schoolchildren. Maybe; but I suspect that there isn’t much intersection between the groups of GWL holders and diagnosed crazies.

For the record, there have been exactly zero criminal shootings on campus by GWL holders since campus carry went into effect. Or before.

What else does Abrams think is “safe”?

Abrams’ platform for gun safety measures includes universal background checks, the introduction of a 3-day waiting period and banning assault weapons.

No word on how criminals — 94% percent of whom bypass all laws by obtaining their firearms through unlawful channels — will be forced to undergo universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint checks. I tried to get a statement from Carol Bowne on waiting periods, but she was unavailable for comment.

But it was Abrams’ position on arming teachers that really struck me.

Abrams has said that arming teachers is dangerous and distracts them from educating.

Either Abrams is projecting her own sad cerebrally-challenged limitations onto our teachers, or Georgia’s teachers are easily distracted, unable to organize thoughts, and too dangerous to be in rooms with helpless children.

Allow me to list a few things I’ve successfully done while armed. It’s far from comprehensive.

  • teach classes
  • attend classes
  • operate a wide assortment of motor vehicles
  • operate a wide assortment of power tool, including chainsaws
  • ditto manual hand tools
  • maintain and repair telecommunications systems, including high power tropspheric scatter communications across internal borders and digital telephone switches.
  • perform security patrols
  • walk, talk, and chew bubble gum
  • vote
  • design book dust jackets and covers
  • write technical manuals
  • write hard science fiction novels
  • write pro-RKBA columns
  • look after small children
  • graphic design
  • build web sites
  • repair automobiles
  • repair lawn irrigation systems
  • check the mail (where I lived, that was a necessity due to all the bears)
  • eat a meal
  • prepare a meal
  • clean up after

To summarize: live a normal life, doing all then usual (and sometimes unusual) stuff of everyday living.

If the gun absorbs all your attention, you’re doing it wrong. Even in defensive circumstances, you are certainly aware of the gun, but your attention is on the situation — situational awareness.

I find my phone far more distracting (when it rings) than my sidearm.

If Georgia teachers are incapable of successfully doing just the first thing thing on my list, then they probably shouldn’t have a gun.

Nor should they be teachers.

And I’m quite certain that Stacey Abrams shouldn’t be governor — nor much of anything that doesn’t involve a guardian — for the same reason.


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Lies, Damned Lies, and the Brady Campaign

Kristin Brown, chief strategy officer of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is a liar. But we’ve come to expect that of the Bradys. She also appears to be so completely ignorant of the law — she is a lawyer, and should know better — that she may also be an idiot.

The Chicago Tribune should embarrassed for running this garbage.

Commentary: Private banks serve the public by pushing gun industry toward consumer safety
Gun violence is one of the most dangerous public health epidemics facing Americans today. Every day, 96 Americans are killed by guns, with another 200 injured.

Cancer alone kills an average of 1,633 people per day; 595,930 per year.

Heart disease kills an average of 1,737 people per day; 633,842 per year.

Firearms deaths doesn’t even make the CDC’s top ten.

These dangerous weapons of war [“assault weapons”] have no business in places of peace, and private companies are increasingly recognizing this fact.

Semiautomatic rifles are not military “weapons of war.” Name the country that generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops. No one does, because they are not considered suitable for war operations in an age of battle rifles and assault rifles.

We know that laws preventing the sales of assault weapons work — the federal ban in place from 1994 to 2004 was proved to reduce shooting massacres in the United States.

Outright lie. Firearms meeting the definition of “assault weapon” in the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, were rarely used in crime before, being just 2% of all crime guns. Or after. What decrease was seen was lost in the statistical noise, and the researchers admit that the use of other weapons increased anyway.

The Brady Campaign’s Gun Dealer Code of Conduct provides a blueprint for how gun sellers can take action on their own accord to make sure their firearms aren’t being sold to dangerous and prohibited people

Ah, the Gun Dealers Code of Conduct. Let’s look at that.

  • Prevent sales of guns to straw purchasers or gun traffickers.
    That’s already unlawful.
  • Prevent sales to persons prohibited from buying guns or too dangerous to possess guns.
    That one, too.
  • Prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through thefts.
    I’m fairly sure that no FFL wants his inventory stolen anyway. Aside from the monetary loss, there’s the paperwork involved in explaining to the ATF what happened to all those bound book entries.
  • Conduct pre-employment background checks on all potential employees, including contacting references and prior employers, as well as conducting a criminal history check that is the same as what gun buyers have to complete. (emphasis added-cb)
    That happens to be illegal. Using NICs for employment background checks is “a violation of federal law, sanctions for which may include criminal prosecution; a civil fine not to exceed $10,000, and/or cancellation of NICS inquiry privileges.”Besides, it would already be unlawful to allow a prohibited person to possess a firearm, employee or not. Sure employee background checks are a good idea, given existing law; but it can’t be the NICS check used for buyers.
  • Assist law enforcement to investigate and prevent criminal access to guns.
    Since that’s pretty much a condition of having an FFL, it seems as redundant as the other demands.
  • You’ll like this one: Immediately notify local and federal authorities of any suspected straw purchasers, prohibited purchasers or dangerous individuals who attempt to obtain guns.
    For all the good it will do. While the Bradys brag on millions of “criminals” being blocked from purchases by NICS checks, the sad fact is that 1) 96% of denials are false positives, 2) only 140 people have been prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm as a prohibited person, 3) only 12 were referred for prosecution in 2017, and the kicker: 4) real criminals pass NICS checks by changing their names, misspelling their names, or simply giving the wrong birthdate.
  • Maintain insurance for victims who are entitled to compensation.
    It’s called “liability insurance,” and most business have some sort of coverage for instance in which they are… you know: liable. If the FFL followed the law, and something happened with a firearm beyond his control, then he isn’t liable. Obeyed. Law. Beyond. His. Control.

Besides, if someone tried to offer liability insurance specifically for firearms-related incidents, California and New York would shut them down, while Bloomberg cheers.

And the Bradys.

“Shooting in self-defense is legal in most cases, so why would people need insurance for something that they are legally entitled to?” [Kristin Brown] says.

Wait. Who? Kristin Brown? Where have I seen that name before?

-scrolls up-

Oh. Funny that. I guess Brown was for it before she was against it.


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Leland, NC: Little Tyrants for Victim Disarmament

Leland, NC Mayor Brenda Bozeman, and presumably Town Manager David Hollis, are slow learners.

Leland Issues State of Emergency and Evacuation Notice in Preparation for Hurricane Florence
RESTRICTIONS ON POSSESSION, TRANSPORATION, AND TRANSFER OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCES

Effective at 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 12, 2018, the transportation or possession, or the sale or purchase of any dangerous weapon or substance, while off one’s own premises, is prohibited. This restriction does not apply to any individual or group of people who has the responsibility for the preservation of the public’s health, safety, or welfare. This restriction does not apply to any law enforcement officers, military personnel assigned for hurricane disaster duties, emergency medical personnel, or any other individual or groups of individuals whose job/employment will assist with the public’s health, safety, or welfare (i.e. fuel delivery personnel, utility repair personnel, etc.)

A firearms ban for the duration.

I tweeted them a note about NC General Statutes Chapter 166A.

§ 166A-19.31.Power of municipalities and counties to enact ordinances to deal with states of emergency.

(b) Type of Prohibitions and Restrictions Authorized. – The ordinances authorized by this section may permit prohibitions and restrictions:
(4) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, and use of gasoline, and dangerous weapons and substances, except that this subdivision does not authorize prohibitions or restrictions on lawfullyblockquote> possessed firearms or ammunition. As used in this subdivision, the term “dangerous weapons and substances” has the same meaning as it does under G.S. 14-288.1. As used in this subdivision, the term “firearm” has the same meaning as it does under G.S. 14-409.39(2).

The Firearms Policy Coalition sent them a pre-litigation demand letter.

Shortly after, Leland updated their Facebook announcement. The SOE notice on their web site was revised to refer to NCGS Ch. 166A. But they failed to change the language implying a ban on the carry of firearms.

I emailed the mayor and town manager about that, and CC’d FPC.

Manager Hollis wrote back and told me they issued a new SOE notice.

I poked around on the town’s web site, found the blog, and discovered a new SOE notice. This one does reflect the actual law.

RESTRICTIONS ON POSSESSION, TRANSPORATION, AND TRANSFER OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCES

Effective at 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 12, 2018, the transportation or possession, or the sale or purchase of dangerous weapons or substances, while off one’s own premises, is prohibited. This prohibition and restriction does not apply to lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition.

Well and good, but…

The original is still there. It still — as of this writing — fails to mention the firearms/ammunition exclusion. It seems likely to me that most people would see the original notice; they might even bookmark it for future reference and not consider the possibility that a different one might suddenly appear somewhere else.

If they can update the original — the one SOE of which people are mostly likely to be aware — to reference the correct Statute, they can update the language to reflect the law.

Hollis assures me that, “The police are fully aware of the limits of the law and the limits of enforcement that apply to the right to bear arms.”

I am happy that the police are aware of the law. It is sad, though, that city management was not, even after the state was sued over this very thing.

Wait… what?

Federal judge says N.C. can’t ban all citizens’ guns during emergencies, April 2, 2012
When winter storms slammed North Carolina in early 2010, Gov. Bev Perdue declared a state of emergency.

The city of King followed on Feb. 5 with its own declaration of emergency that included — as allowed by state law — a ban on the possession of alcohol and firearms except at a person’s own home.

A Stokes County man, two other people and two gun-rights organizations sued the state, King and Stokes County that summer, claiming that their rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution were violated. The amendment protects citizens’ right to bear arms.

Now, a federal court has agreed, ruling that state law can’t make a blanket ban that keeps the plaintiffs from carrying or buying guns and ammunition during an emergency.

Slow. Learners.

They failed to recall the fuss over this in 2010. They failed to recall the federal lawsuit, and judge’s verdict.

They failed to know current law.

If they were any slower, they’d be in reverse.

They do seem to be — slowly — fixing their error, now that every knowledgeable rights group in the country brought the massive legal error to their attention. But I’d love an explanation of how they managed to maintain such a colossal state of moral, judisprudence, and legal cluelessness for all these years. In short, why did they make this mistake in the first place?

If mistake it was. Perhaps they were counting on ignorance on the part of their citizens, and thought they could get away with a little tyranny.


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Deprivation of Rights Is Suddenly a Bad Thing?

Young Mister Hogg, speaking at the Toronto International Film Festival, made the astonishing — for him — assertion that people should not be deprived of human/civil rights because of a mere felony conviction.

“I think the most important thing to realize, however, is the problems we face as a country, whether it be water in Flint, Michigan or the mass amount of mass incarceration of people of color that can’t vote. In Florida, the number of eligible African Americans that would otherwise be eligible to vote but can’t because of a previous conviction is 21 percent. In Kentucky it’s 26 percent. In Mississippi and Alabama it’s 15 to 16 percent.”

I personally subscribe to the notion that anyone who can’t be trusted with a firearm should not be on the street without a keeper. If they’re safe to be on the loose, they’re safe to exercise constitutionally protected rights. Whether that’s voting or bearingdefensive arms.

I’m pleased to see that Hogg agr… oh. Wait.

“Why didn’t you ban bump-stocks and raise the age to purchase firearm to 21 when you said you would?”

We’ll leave aside for the moment the fact that the befuddled boy has no idea of how our constitutional representative republic works, and that no president has the lawful power to do that. And if he did rule by edict, Hogg would probably call him a dictator; “Hitler” even.

Hogg is outraged that those convicted of felonies lose rights. But stripping Second Amendment rights from people never convicted of any crime is a good thing?

This is the punk who wants the voting age lowered to 16 so they can vote to raise the age to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

Eighteen year-olds are too immature to safely operate a simple device with three or four controls, but sixteen year-olds can operate massive motor vehicles with a plethora of controls to manipulate?

If they cannot master arms, then they certainly can’t be trusted with the far more complex instruments of democracy.


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


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail