Category Archives: So Much Stupid!

Alec Baldwin: Spin, Spin, Spin

Yes, I’m a little late to the game. I wanted to be sure I had all the relevant reports from officialdom. I think it’s generally better to be accurate, than rapidly off target.

Alec Baldwin and his attorney are spinning like tops, trying to counter the — expected — damning report on the forensic examination of the firearm Baldwin used to kill Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin has previously suggested that Rust Assistant Director Dave Halls and Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed are to blame for the shooting. He claims that they declared the gun “cold” when it was actually “hot,” and he has accused them of not doing enough checks.

Baldwin also had possession of the gun. What of his responsibility to do a check, or to handle the firearm in a responsible manner?

“The FBI report is being misconstrued,” Baldwin’s attorney said. “The gun fired in testing only one time — without having to pull the trigger — when the hammer was pulled back and the gun broke in two different places.”

“The FBI was unable to fire the gun in any prior test, even when pulling the trigger, because it was in such poor condition,” the lawyer added.

Except that is definitely not what the FBI report says.

Item 2 is a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver, Model 1873 SA (Californian), Serial Number E52277, which functioned normally when tested in the Laboratory.

“Unable to fire […] because it was in such poor condition” is not “functioned normally.”

Additionally, Item 2 has a hammer with a fixed firing pin and does not contain any internal safety mechanisms to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer of a chambered cartridge, such as a transfer bar or hammer block. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

Again, normal operation; not failed to fire due to poor condition. I suspect that the shyster is basing his false claim that the gun failed to fire on this single, out of context sentence, from the FBI report.

This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

Fuller context: “this testing” refers to the “Accidental Discharge Testing” section of the report. “This testing” failed to obtain a discharge without pulling the trigger when the weapon has at both quarter cock and half cock. Because the sear stops functioned normally.

At full cock, the FBI was able to cause the weapon to discharge without a trigger pull… only by pounding on the hammer so hard that the sear broke.

With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

The sear functioned normally (yeah, that phrase again) until the FBI managed to break a previously normally functioning firearm in forcing a failure.

This report doesn’t exonerate Baldwin by demonstrating a firearm in poor condition. It condemns the lying bastard by proving the gun was working properly while in Baldwin’s criminally negligent hands.

Baldwin, and too many excuse-making media outlets make a big deal of the Medical Examiner’s report seemingly clearing Baldwin of culpability by declaring the incident an accident. Sure enough, that word appears on the report summary page (page 35).

MANNER OF DEATH: Accident

Alone and out of context. Let’s read the rest of the report for the details of that one word. Page 37:

Death was caused by a gunshot wound of the chest. Review of available law enforcement reports showed no compelling demonstration that the firearm was intentionally loaded with live ammunition on set. Based on all available information, including the absence of obvious intent to cause harm or death, the manner of death is best classified as accident.

I’ll grant that Baldwin probably had no intent to cause Hutchin’s death, or to wound Souza. That leaves a lot of room for negligence, which makes it involuntary manslaughter on Baldwin’s part.

Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Ignoring, thus violating, every basic rule of firearms handing is most definitely “without due caution and circumspection.”.

Baldwin negligently failed to check the gun he was handling. Because why would an allegedly responsible adult do what little kds successfully learn, when he has babysitters to do it for him?

He negligently pointed the loaded firearm at two human beings. Because he’s only an allegedly responsible adult, and someone supposedly told him to do it.

He negligently fired a normally functioning gun at those two human beings. Because who knew that if you hold the trigger down while pulling the hammer back, the normally functioning loaded gun would function normally. Because what allegedly responsible adult could expect such a normal occurrence?

Others may share some additional culpability in this senseless killing, particularly the so-called “armorer.” Why was live ammo on a movie set at all? Why did the armorer not properly examine her supposedly dummy and blank rounds to be sure of what she had? Why was any round — dummy, blank, or live — loaded into a gun for a rehearsal that didn’t call for a discharge? Why was anyone but the “armorer” handing Baldwin a firearm?

But if Baldwin had followed a few basic rules, the possible failures of others still would not have mattered. Is he a responsible adult? I’m dubious, because his “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” sounds remarkably like the act of a three year-old.

In the final analysis, despite any additional culpability on the part of others, Alec Baldwin is responsible for the negligent killing of Halyna Hutchins. He failed to check the weapon. He pointed it at two people. He discharged a normally functioning firearm at them.

Alec Baldwin killed Halyna Hutchins.

All that remains to be seen is if New Mexico authorities will even do the right thing, or protect Baldwin, and future film production income for the state. I’m also dubious of the right thing happening, since Baldwin wasn’t arrested and formally charged months ago.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Soviet Levels Of Propaganda”

Welcome to the party, pal.

Biden Administration Accused of Gaslighting Nation with ‘Soviet Level Propaganda’ After Attempting to Redefine Recession
The White House is being accused of gaslighting the American people with “Soviet levels of propaganda” as Biden officials attempt to change the definition of recession amid economic data that shows the United States is entering into a recession.

A recession is traditionally defined as two consecutive quarters of economic decline.

Who cares what traditional definitions are when you’re a statist thug grabbing more power? This may be new to The Georgia Star News, but it’s business as usual for gun owners.

Open-bolt semiautomatics became machineguns, except when they didn’t.

Fingers became triggers and bump-stocks became machineguns. Hell’s bells, they even redefined “volitional” (not to mention magically finding the very word in the law that doesn’t actually include it).

Rubber bands may or may not be machineguns; they’ll know it when they see it.

Braces were braces, until they became stocks and pistols became rifles, and paper weights became firearms.

Hey, remember when the ATF also decided that airsoft guns are machineguns, too? Honestly, what isn’t a machinegun anymore? Well, shoestrings for now; although they were, until the ATF revoked that determination after a few years of ridicule.

Wall hooks are machineguns. And pictures.

That’s not even a complete listing. The ATF — unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats — routinely reinterpret/redefine/just-plain-“find” laws every time somebody invents something that the elected legislators didn’t think of: orthogonal rifling, slide/frame semiautos, and more.

A federal judge decided magazines are firearms.

Some of us, who bothered to notice, have been warning for years of the dangers of unelected bureaucrats changing definitions to suit themselves and enslave Americans.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Idiots All Around?

The latest Dimwit attempt to pass a federal “assault weapon” ban just passed in committee. And none of the swamp critters seem to know what’s in it, if this article is to be believed.

‘That’s The Point’: Rep. Nadler Admits Bill Will Confiscate Guns In ‘Common Use’
Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop asked House Democrats if they dispute the fact that the proposed legislation H.R. 1808, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” bans firearms in “common use” throughout the country.

“Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Bishop asked.

“That’s the point of the bill,” Nadler replied.

If banning these common firearms is the point, someone seriously screwed up. As introduced, HR 1808 — not yet amended — doesn’t ban any existing firearm.

“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021.

It bans transfers and importation of future firearms and magazines. But it — semi-wisely — doesn’t touch existing items. The only mention of confiscation or seizure is (“d) Seizure And Forfeiture Of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices;” again, that’s new “high capacity” magazines.

Or possibly the congresscritters do understand this, and it’s only the Daily Caller that doesn’t grasp the difference between a future “ban” and “confiscate.”

Hint: One would merely piss off a lot of people, while the other would get a lot of cops killed. I think even some Dims get that, which is why mandated confiscation, seizure, or surrender of arms is nowhere in the bill. Yet.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Michael Moore’s XXVIII AMENDMENT

Michael Moore, apparently desperate for attention after a series of film flops — of which most I’d never even heard — is frantically screaming, Look at me! He has drafted, and allegedly sent to Congress, a 28th Amendment proposal to repeal and replace the Second Amendment.

When I saw this, I had thought I’d do a full fisking on it. But once I got to any homemade equipment and machinery or a 3D printer that can make a gun or weapon that can take a human life,” I knew there was no point to it.

Any equipment and machinery that could be used to make anything that could used to kill.

In the letter I mention flintknapping, but really, the dumb SOB would be outlawing virtually any human technology. Baseball bats, electricity, cars, fertilizers and pesticides. Anything that can potentially kill.

I encourage Moore to adopt this “nothing that can kill” lifestyle immediately. Please.

Mr. Moore,

One of the most disturbing aspects of your proposed amendment is that you appear to have *attempted* to put a lot of thought into it. Attempted, but failed.

I could critique that amendment line by line, but once you outlawed rocks and flintknapping, there hardly seems to be much point to the exercise. I suspect you have never crafted a physical object in your life, other than PBJ sandwiches.

Granted, outlawing full-auto conversion devices for single-shot firearms was amusing.

I do wonder what odds you set for ratification of this proposal, in a nation where half the states have deliberately removed mandated licensing.

Will you volunteer to lead the stack of a confiscation team, to collect the millions of firearms no one is going to turn in voluntarily? You live in Michigan, I see, so you could volunteer to disarm Bloods and Crips in Detroit. Have fun with that since your amendment would disarm you and your police team members.

Watching you try that in southern Georgia might be even more amusing. You would keep gators, pigs, and coyotes fed for quite some time.

Oh, and a hint: You should review HELLER, MCDONALD, and NYSRPA v. Bruen. NO amendment “grants” a right to keep and bear arms. It is a preexisting fundamental and individual right.

I will be re-posting this email at the zelmanpartisans.com, where we do not limit comments to “paid subscribers;” feel free to reply there.

It seems unlikely that Moore will show up here. But if he does, have fun, and be as polite as he deserves.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Just Once, I Want To See An Honest “Gun Control” Poll

Our bipartisan gang-rape Senators are trying to force a vote next week on the proposed package of new rights infringements despite the troubling fact that there is still no actual Senate bill filed.

I guess we have to pass it so we can see what’s in it.

But that lack of information isn’t stopping pollsters trying to claim support for the “bill.” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse alleges that 84% of gun-owning Americans support the imaginary-to-date legislation.

Oh, really? Let’s take a look at that poll. I see a few problems.

To start, they only polled those stupid enough to admit to a random, anonymous caller that they have at least one firearm in the home. But it’s much worse than that.

Respondents in the telephone portion of this survey were called from a national list of registered voters, and respondents in the online portion were drawn from a national panel of registered voters.

The caller might be anonymous, but anyone foolish enough to participate wasn’t. They started with a list of names and phone numbers of specific identified voters. Participants just told strangers who can match their “Yes, I have portable valuables in the house” answers to names and physical addresses.

Gee, what else did the pollsters ask about?

Do you have a large screen television?

Do you own easily pawned jewelry?

Do you own a nice laptop computer?

What time do you leave your home for the day?

So now we’ve limited that 84% to a pool of gullible fools.

As always in these things, the polling questions are a mess.

A mandatory waiting period on all purchases of semi-automatic guns, like the AR-15, by people under 21, so that everyone who purchases a semi-automatic gun must wait a certain number of days before taking the gun home.

That wording is going to mislead known fools into thinking that’s only a waiting period for AR-pattern firearm purchases. As best I can tell from press releases — lacking an actual bill to review — that it would apply to all centerfire semi-automatic firearms.

Then they could ask what other Constitutionally [used to be] protected rights they think should be restricted to those over 21.

Should the exercise of free speech be limited to those over 21?

Should voting be limited to those over 21?

Should the right to a trial and jury of your peers to be limited to those over 21?

Moving on…

Requiring background checks on all gun sales, including between strangers at gun shows and online. Gun sales between family, friends and hunters would be exempted from background checks.

Nothing I’ve see suggests any exemption for friends and hunters is in the deal. But even if they were exempted, I’d much rather see the question phrased differently. “Requiring background checks on all gun sales, including between strangers at gun shows and online. The check would require seller and buyer to travel to a licensed firearm dealer, and complete a form 4473 giving the ATF your name, address, gender, birth date, and race, creating a permanent searchable record of your purchase. During the waiting period, the dealer would take physical possession of the firearm. After the waiting period is complete, only then would you return to the dealer to obtain the property for which you already paid. Oh, and you have to pay extra for this dubious privilege.”

Next.

Increased funding for states to implement and strengthen so called “red flag” laws, which gives family or law enforcement a way to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting violent or unstable behavior.

Nope. Current law already allows that. What “red flag” laws do is expand the pool of people who can request removal, and — wait for it — do so without giving the accused a hearing — and the opportunity to face his accuser — before the taking.

I’d ask that: “Increased funding for states to implement and strengthen so called “red flag” laws, which violate federal law on due process, and the TRUAX Supreme Court ruling, to ensure that gun owners do not get a court hearing before their property is stolen.”

And the return of the “boyfriend loophole.

Prohibiting any person from purchasing or owning firearms who has been convicted of domestic violence against their boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse or significant other.

Perpetuating the lie. As phrased, that is already what the Lautenberg Amendment did decades ago. This new bit slips in the alleged “boyfriend loophole;” what closing that loophole really does is to expand the definition of boy/girlfriend from a significant romantic relationship to he picked me up in a bar for a one night stand thirty years ago. I’d probably mention that this specifically includes minor misdemeanor offenses, not just felonies.

The remaining questions pertain to school security, notably armed guards.

Support increased funding for public schools to have armed security guards on school property.

Aside from the curious omission of private school security, I’d suggest that’s insufficient. Given the notable lack of police action at Columbine, Parkland, and Uvalde, they should slide in some penalties for cops who don’t do anything but treat the event like a unscheduled coffee break.

Ah, well. I’m just dreaming. Short of winning lottery jackpot, and commissioning my own national polls, we will never see an honest victim disarmament poll.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Media Responsibility Or Gun Responsibility?

Devarrick Turner, a Gannett “Multimedia Entertainment Journalist” deigns to lecture more knowledgeable Americans on the alleged difference between “gun responsibility” vs. “gun control.”

Mass shootings spark debate over ‘gun responsibility’ vs. ‘gun control.’ Here’s the difference
Opponents believe strict gun laws infringe upon their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Some Second Amendment supporters — like actor Matthew McConaughey, whose hometown is Uvalde — are now using the term gun responsibility instead of gun control.

responsibility: 1: the quality or state of being responsible: such as
a: moral, legal, or mental accountability
b: RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS

Since individuals are already legally responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms, however obtained or possessed, I can only assume that Turner wants to legislate morality. That rarely turns out well, since three people can barely agree on what is moral all the time.

Mandatory background checks for gun purchases, including at private sales and gun shows, which current federal law does not require.

Private sales, no matter the location, do not require background checks, and never have. Why, after 246 years is this suddenly a problem?

Commercial sales at gun shows have required background checks for more than two decades. How did the oh-so-knowledgeable Turner miss this minor fact?

“Red flag” laws that temporarily seize firearms from individuals who have been may be a danger to themselves or others. These must be court-ordered and due process must be applied to assess the individual and the alleged threat.

5 CFR § 732.301; TRUAX, 1921; and GOLDBERG v. KELLY, 1970 require due process that allows the accused a hearing before an action against the accused to be taken. Can Mr. Turner specify which enacted “red flag” law gives the accused a hearing before firearms are seized?

Implement a national waiting period for assault rifles purchases.

According to the ATF, it currently takes five months to process an application for an assault rifle. How much longer does Turner propose that buyer wait?

I suspect that Turner’s apparent confusion is based in ignorance of what an assault rifle is.

Raise the age limit to buy AR-15 rifles (gun often used in mass shootings) from 18 to 21.

How does Turner define “often used”? I can only find one mass shooting in which Colt AR-15s were used: Mandalay Bay, in Las Vegas, Nevada.

It’s true that I found many other claims of AR-15s being used, but like the Orlando nightclub shooting (SIG MCX), those usually prove to be some other weapon. Handguns are used in most mass shootings. Federal law already requires one to be 21yo to purchase those from a dealer.

But if the minimum age to purchases rifles in raised to 21, how will Turner reconcile that with MILLER, 1939 and 10 U.S. Code § 246 which require those 17 to 45 to possess arms in common military use.

Laws that require safe storing protocols and safety training to increase responsible gun ownership.

Outside of urban areas, Georgia residents, for instance, commonly keep firearms ready to deal with snakes and other wildlife. In urban environments they are kept to deal with criminal wildlife. How will you compensate those people for their loss of safety? We encounter one of those “legislating morality” issues here: I do not consider it moral to force honest folks to lock up their defensive tools. “Safe storage” kills.

There is also the matter of ensuring compliance with “safe storage” laws. How is that to be done? Does Turner propose door to door searches of homes for firearms, and charges for those found not to be stored in compliance with whatever arbitrary rules he wants?

Or will Turner require owners to admit, when reporting a lost or stolen firearm, that gun was not “safely stored?” I think that would run afoul of HAYNES restrictions on self-incrimination.

Before pushing to regulate morality, Turner would do well to educate himself on current laws, and what exactly firearms are. To do otherwise might seem… irresponsible.

[Turner was asked to comment before publication. He did not respond.]

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Jackson-Lee Has A Little Correlation Issue

Texas Congresscritter Sheila Jackson-Lee is generally good for entertaining stupidity, and this is no exception.

Jackson Lee: There Was ‘Seismic Increase of Carnage Across America Using Automatic Weapons’ after Assault Weapons Ban Expired
Jackson Lee said, “I have committed, over the years, having introduced bills dealing with the ban on assault weapons post-2004, as you well know, Ayman, that’s when it ended. And we saw the seismic increase of carnage across America using automatic weapons. And in the instance of Buffalo and the instance of Uvalde, having gone there on Sunday, meeting with and just listening to the sheer desperation of families and children. That was an AR-15 as well.”

I’m sure even the most casual TZP reader caught the main problem, but let me take this a point at a time.

I’ll start with that skyrocketing use of “automatic weapons, known legally as machineguns. Happily for us, TZP tracks machinegun use, so the data I want is readily available.

Right off, I hope you noticed that machinegun use is pretty darned rare. The next thing to notice is that prior to the misnomered “assault weapon ban” (it banned zero existing firearms) in 1994, there had been ONE reported machinegun use since 1981.

Next, note that after the “AWB” expired in 2004 there… huh, zero machine uses for the next 13 years.

That doesn’t look like much of a correlation between the AWB expiration and automatic weapon use. But do take a look between those red lines indicating when the AWB was in effect.

Three machinegun uses.

Lessee… virtually no machinegun uses prior to the ban, a “jump” (kinda statistically meaningless really, seeing as how small the samples are) during the ban, and a drop to nonexistent use once the ban expired. If I suffered a traumatic brain injury and turned into a Dimocrat, I’d probably think that the “assault weapon ban” caused machinegun use.

Heck, if I were a Dimocrat, I’d probably think the AWB caused machineguns.

But on to the point that probably had folks muttering before all that. I had recently had cause to revisit the “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994. It didn’t address automatic weapons — machineguns — at all.

It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

Machinegun use “increased” (though it didn’t) post-AWB? Jackson-Lee might as well have noted that US egg production increased post-AWB. At least that actually happened. But showing a cause and effect relation between the two might be a little difficult.

But Jackson-Lee’s real point is in that final sentence.

That was an AR-15 as well.

It was actually a Daniel Defense DDM4, not a Colt AR-15 (how many people realize that “AR-15” is a registered trademark of Colt?), but we understand that she’s attempting to “smear” all AR-pattern rifles as “automatic weapons”…

Just as Josh Sugarmann intended

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

The lie lives on. Along with this classic repeated by Jackson-Lee.

So, there’s a gathering around recognizing that assault weapons kill. They killed 19 children and two teachers.”

The known psycho wielding the rifle (singular) killed those people, with a rifle.

100+ million people with tens of millions of AR-pattern firearms DID NOT.

But blame the 0.000005% of inanimate objects for the actions of <0.000001% of gun owners.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

If Only Someone Regulated Firearms

I mentioned this on my personal blog yesterday, but I think the utter stupidity of Texas Rep. Escobar deserves more attention. This is jaw-dropping.

Dem Rep. Escobar: We Regulate Tobacco, Alcohol, Roadways — ‘Guns Should Be No Different’
Wednesday on MSNBC’s “José Díaz-Balart Reports,” Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) doubled down on her call for guns to be regulated much like tobacco, alcohol, and roadways in the wake of the shooting at a Texas elementary school that left 19 children dead.

As I said yesterday…

There’s this little known agency called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that regulates alcohol, tobacco, FIREARMS, and explosives, you effin’ ditz.

And what minuscule number of laws and regs might they they be enforcing in regards to firearms (in addition to the alcohol and tobacco they regulate)?

18 U.S. Code § 921

18 U.S. Code § 922

18 U.S. Code § 923

18 U.S. Code § 924

18 U.S. Code § 925

18 U.S. Code § 926

And all that is just a sampling of sections in Chapter 44. There’s always 26 U.S. Code § 5845, for another single example.

Then there’s the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations; pages and pages and pages and…

That’s only at the federal level, Escobar. I suppose it’ll come as a shock to your tiny, ill-informed — yet somehow still legislating — pseudo-mind that every state, territory, federal district, civilian and military installation has their own additional.

Individual counties, cities, and towns pile on their own laws and regulations.

I think we may have just a few regulations on guns.

If you wish to contact Dimwit Escobar, to explain the statutory and regulatory facts of life to, you can contact her office HERE. Be aware that Escobar is one of those tyrannical types who likes to vote on national legislation, but is grossly afraid of national feedback. Her contact form requires you to enter a ZIP+4 within her district to pass “Go.”

79901-1443 should work, for those of you affected by her idiocy but not resident in her district.

Have fun.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

I Hate The Term “Assault Weapon”

And this is just one of the many reasons why. I keep seeing crap about the Buffalo shooter illegally “modifying” his Bushmaster XM-15 rifle (when some dumbass isn’t calling it an “AR-15” which happens to be a Colt trademark). Case in point:

Buffalo shooting suspect learned to modify his gun on YouTube. The videos are still online.
The 18-year-old suspected of targeting and fatally shooting 10 Black people in Buffalo, New York, wrote in what are believed to be his online journals that he learned how to illegally modify his rifle by watching YouTube videos. The suspect appeared to link to the videos in Discord chat logs, and the videos were still available on YouTube as of Thursday evening — five days after the shooting.

The advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund called on YouTube to remove these videos, saying that they violate YouTube’s community guidelines banning videos that show how to install gun accessories like high-capacity magazines.

Since thus far the only “modification” I’ve heard about is that he had 10+ round magazines, I was very curious as to exactly how he “modified” the rifle. What do the supergeniuses at Everytown say?

Based on a review of the shooter’s writings and public news reports about the weapon used in the shooting, the shooter may have watched this video to equip his Bushmaster rifle with an Anderson Manufacturing magazine release after removing the Mean Arms MA Lock in violation of New York’s assault weapons regulations.

Ah. So Everytown believes the chumbucket might have removed the magazine lock and installed a conventional magazine catch so that he could swap out magazines in a normal manner.

I’ll pause for a moment, to see if you can spot the problem with that. It’s possible you won’t, if you live in neither New York… nor California.

All “assault weapons” are not created equal. Except in a few jurisdictions that have defined the term in law, it’s meaningless. For instance, In Georgia there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”

But in New York, there is such a thing.

California has also defined “assault weapon.”

But the definitions differ in each state.

In California, the powers-that-be decided that you should not be able to swap magazines normally. There, an AR-pattern rifle must be equipped with a magazine lock that makes normal operation impossible. So if the Buffalo, New York scumbag wanted to travel to California, purchase a California-compliant rifle, and modify it to allow normal mag swaps, he might want to remove an MA Lock and replace it with an AA mag release.

But New York does not ban mag releases, as California does (I’m open to correction, if someone can find such a restriction in the law). They just say you can’t insert a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.

So the Buffalo bastard would have zero reason to “modify” his rifle by removing a feature not there in the first place, and replacing it with a feature it already has.

The Everytown dimwits assumed that As California Goes, So Goes the Country. If California requires something then surely every other state must do the same, right?

Nope.

It is possible that the Bushmaster the shooter purchased was California compliant as well as New York compliant. The manufacturer/distributor could have simplified production by combining the worst of both states, just so they wouldn’t have complicate their production lines with two products, each with limited appeal. To date, I have not seen a picture of the specific firearm used; I don’t know if it was dual-compliant.

But that doesn’t make the Cal-required mag lock the law in New York. In NY, installing a normal mag release would not be an “illegal modification.”

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Questions For Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia

In the context of the Buffalo mass shooting, Texas Rep, Sylvia Garcia was asked a question.

“At this point, in this closely-divided Congress, do you see any appetite right now to take up, once again, the idea of an assault weapons ban in this country?”

The question was clearly a pre-planned softball for the half-witted Dim. The scumbag reportedly used a NY SAFE Act-compliant Bushmaster XM-15 rifle; a non-“assault weapon.”

The ditz still flubbed it.

We need to do something about making sure that bad guys don’t get their hands on handguns.

The context was the Buffalo shooting. He did not use a handgun; it was a NY SAFE Act-compliant Bushmaster XM-15 rifle.

And we need to make sure that these assault and automatic weapons don’t get in the hands of bad guy

One more time, moron: It was not an “assault weapon.” It was not an automatic weapon (something even NY Gov. Hochul could figure out).

And now we enter the Twilight Zone. Picking up where she left off…

And we need to make sure that these assault and automatic weapons don’t get in the hands of bad guys, and sometimes, bad women. Because, again, I’ve been rabbit hunting.

-blink- Um, what? Let’s simplify that.

We need to get guns out of the hands of bad women because I’ve been rabbit hunting.

Aaaall righty, then.

So now I come to the questions I think Garcia should answer.

1. Are you on drugs?

Because you sound like you’re on drugs. And not prescription goodies. On the other hand…

2. If you are not on drugs, should you be? (The prescription sort, this time.)

3. If neither recreational nor prescription pharmaceuticals were involved, is your stupidity natural or the result of an accident?

I could add a fourth question prompted by this:

Handguns, in my view, are not for hunting. They’re not for protection. I think handguns are, frankly, for killing people.

Oddly enough, I have never killed anyone with a handgun. I even bought one large-bore handgun specifically for hunting. I have used a handgun for defense. So…

4. Are my non-killing handguns defective, and should I demand refunds?

The first three questions were submitted to Garcia’s office. They did not respond to multiple emails.

Go figure.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail