“Expropriation”

I was cruising the usual gun bloggers for newsletter fodder last week and came across this.

“Expropriation Without Compensation” is Theft
There is no voice of reason. One guy is worried it will stop foreign investment. (Really? Just because you steal things that have been in another’s possession for generations, you think people might be turned off by that?)

When I saw the post title, and knowing that a big expropriation is coming, I initially assumed this was the bump-fire stock ban, in which a minimum of hundreds of thousands of people will theoretically lose anywhere from 280,000 to 520,000 pieces of property to corrupt government acts.

But no.

South Africa is just about set to steal land from white farmers because whites are not allowed in SA anymore. (Almost) South Africa white farmers crisis: This IMPORTANT date could change South Africa FOREVER.

The date in question for South Africa is March 31, 2019, which might add to the confusion, since our ban was formally published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2018. 90 days after that (when the ban proper goes into effect) is March 26, 2019.

Pretty close coincidence. And yes, I do equate the South African and American government thefts. Both establish precedents that the government can take whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and doesn’t even have to make a token payment. In South Africa, it’s farms. In America, it’s toys.

For now. It’s a precedent. What might our benevolent government decide we don’t need next? Yes, a semiauto ban could be on the horizon. But why limit the precedent to firearms?

Anyone remember a guy named Gore, who planned to outlaw internal combustion? Take a look at the Green New Deal being pushed by incoming Democrats.

I will admit that the SA and American thefts differ in a key aspect. The South Africans formally (if rather corruptly) amended their constitution to make their theft “legal.”

In America, the ATF simply (and rather corruptly) wrote a new rule. No amendment, legislation, or rational rationale required. Just language games.

How crazy is it that the South Africans stealing land are paying more lip service to law than the United States?

Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.

 

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

Screw you, NRA

The NRA has released a Statement on Bump Fire Stock Rule. Feel free to read it, but I can paraphrase their five paragraphs in a few words:

Don’t blame us. We only wanted regulation under the NFA, registration, taxes, and a ban on new stocks. And our compromise saved us from other bans. Let’s work together.

Wayne LaPierre, or Chris Cox. It’s hard to tell them apart sometimes.

The preemptive surrender monkeys of the NRA asked for the ATF to regulate bump-fire stocks as National Firearms Act items. They asked for this as nearly the entire politico-media industrial complex was saying that bump-fire stocks turn semiautomatic rifles into machineguns.

And just in case it wasn’t clear enough, the NRA told them: “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Does that language sound familiar?

What type of NFA item did the NRA think the ATF would call them? I recall when the NRA helped draft a city “assault weapon ban” and similarly claimed they were preventing something worse. It didn’t. And the NRA version even banned SKSs with fixed ten-round magazines.

Capitulating on “bump-fire stocks turn guns into machineguns” before anyone even entered a bill merely signalled to the gun control crowd that they’re fair game, and open season. It told their pet RINOs that they would not be held responsible for human/civil rights infringement. Semiauto ban bills were then entered.

The NRA claims there could have been an amnesty for existing bump-fire stocks, as provided for in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and gives an example from 1981. Apparently they completely forgot their complicity in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 that completely closed off any possible amnesty for anything built or imported after the May 1986 deadline. (For that matter, the NRA was complicit in the NFA, claiming it would have been worse without them caving on militia grade weapons for militia members.)

If the NRA wanted an amnesty to register existing bump-fire stocks, it had to be through legislation to change the complete ban on new machineguns in FOPA. By going the ATF regulation route, they guaranteed a ban on bumpfire stocks. The Zelman Partisans have been pointing out this problem for months. The NRA didn’t notice until the rule was signed (and the problem of a semi-auto ban because they can be easily converted to “machinegun” with bump-fire stocks, the same way we lost open-bolt semi-autos)?

The NRA told the ATF to regulate these inert chunks of plastic as machineguns, and then act shocked that FOPA applies.

Either the NRA is staffed with complete idiots, or it was just another cunning plan to push rights violations so they could then fundraise to “fight” the rights violation. Or buy Wayne a limo; whichever makes him happier.

“It’s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.”

It is critical for all gun owners to unite. Folks, it isn’t your grand dad’s NRA anymore, and it’s too far gone to ever fix and make into whatever you imagine the NRA once was. The NRA has been doing this for more than two decades. I quit the NRA over it in the mid ’90s. It’s past time to tell them you aren’t buying this load of manure anymore.

Take your time, money, and effort to someone who will work for you, instead of the NRA which consistently — NFA, GCA, FOPA, GFSZA, Brady, constitutional carry, ERPOs, bump-fire — works against you and your rights.

 

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

Amnesty: GCA ’68 vs. FOPA ’86

I’m going to be posting another column tonight. This is going to be background material for it.

Some people are defending the NRA’s call for regulating bump-fire stocks under the National Firearms Act; the NRA’s… thinking… being that there could have been an amnesty to grandfather in existing stocks.

An interesting theory. The Gun Control Act of 1968 did allow for amnesty and registration periods.

But then, just 18 years later, we got the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act of 1986.

FOPA flat out slammed the door on registration of “machineguns” manufactured or imported — for civilians — after the May 1986 deadline. The possibility for other NFA items — suppressors, short-barrel firearms, etc. — might still be there. One might even argue that machineguns that had, at some point, been lawfully possessed prior to the ’86 deadline (had been registered, but somehow got improperly transferred) could still get an amnesty.

But nothing manufactured or imported after ’86. Like bump-fire stocks, which suddenly became “machineguns.”

Sorry, NRA. You should have read those laws, in which you are complicit, a little more closely.

I did. In fact, I always read legislation as, “What’s the worst possible interpretation an abusive ATF or administration could make of this?” The NRA should do the same. You aren’t going to be fundraising on your screw-ups forever; folks are getting tired of your backstabbing.

 

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

GAO: Background checks STILL don’t work

This just screams for comment, given that universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint is probably going to pass next year.

GAO: Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions
Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase. Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.

CNN is reporting this as “More than 99.9% of those who were investigated escaped with nothing more than a warning.”

But that’s misleading. It’s far, far worse than that.

112,090 denials. 12 prosecutions. Only 0.0107% — a hair over one-one hundredth of one percent — of denials are prosecuted.

112,090 denials. Only 11% are even referred for investigation. Meaning it was clear that 89% of the denials were false positives. 89% of denials were clearly violations of constitutionally protected human/civil rights.

Of the 12,710 that warranted looking into, only 12 were clear enough cases of prohibited persons trying to obtain firearms to bother going to court. That suggests that the percentage of rights violations was actually 99.99%, but not necessarily.

ATF field divisions […] generally only refer cases to USAOs for prosecution when aggravating circumstances exist, such as violent felonies or multiple serious offenses over a short period of time.

It turns out that they referred 50 cases for prosecution. Fifty cases of people allegedly with a history of “violent felonies or multiple serious offenses over a short period of time” referred.

12 the prosecutors actually think can be prosecuted.

But there’s a big gap between 12,710 investigations and 50 prosecution referrals. And the report does not give a number for “proper denial, but we didn’t think it worth wasting our time,” or “Nope; X number shouldn’t have been denied.”

By the government’s own numbers, a bare minimum of 89% percent of false positive denials are proof that NICS background checks don’t work. The number could range as high as 99.99%.

Background checks don’t work. The results are meaningless. And the GAO essentially found that other folks agree with that assessment.

Officials from 10 of our 13 selected POC states said that they do not
investigate or prosecute NICS denials.

Here’s another number: 77% of states know NICS results are worthless and will not even try to investigate referred (the one’s which might actually be problems, much less the rest) denials.

 

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 could go wrong?” she chirped.

The NRA, Trump, and a gaggle of gun controllers and politicians have pushed for “red flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders The alleged idea is to bypass due process to confiscate firearms from someone who supposedly poses a threat to himself or others, no evidence needed. “Due process” would come after the theft — sometimes weeks later — and leaves the allegedly “dangerous” person free to do whatever they think he might do sometime in the future.

Just yesterday, I wrote a bit of satire about the just-signed rule banning bump-fire stocks, and added this bit:

When asked about the NRA’s position on “red flag” extreme risk protection orders, another controversial gun control proposal the NRA has supported, Aikiddin whined, “No one who isn’t potentially thinking about doing something, but hasn’t, has anything to fear from red flag laws. And we think that balancing PRE-crime infringements of rights with POST due process offers legal symmetry.”

“What could go wrong?” she chirped. “But we can raise money on that, too.”

I stand corrected.

No one who isn’t potentially thinking about doing something, but hasn’t, and doesn’t know someone who maybe might consider doing something eventually, has anything to fear from red flag laws.

UPDATED: Police, school officials avert Middlebury middle school shooting
After confirming the whereabouts and establishing short-term plans for both young suspects, police turned their attention to securing their alleged source of guns.

“We executed what is called an ‘extreme risk order’ (Monday) night at a relative’s house who had all these firearms,” Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”

Not the suspect. Firearms safely secured. And they executed an “extreme risk order against an innocent person no one had even claimed was a risk.

They just violated someone’s human/civil rights for as much as six months, and without the chance to beg for restoral for up to two weeks. Because someone else — who may not even reside in that home — was accused of a pre-crime.

And the minors whom they believe were planning a crime?

“There may be some other charges down the road, but right now it’s the treatment issues we’re dealing with.”

They confiscated ten firearms from someone else based on something that they not even charge anyone for.

What could possibly go wrong? It isn’t as if anyone will ever further abuse that precedent.

Right?

 

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

The Motivation for Lying

There’s been a shooting. The shooter claims self defense. But then witnesses come forward and contradict his story. Who knows? Witnesses honestly do not always see the same thing, or they might misinterpret what they saw. The shooter may honestly believe he had to shoot the person, and maybe he did.

Then photographic evidence reveals the shooter not only blatantly lied about a crucial fact that “supported” his need to shoot, but afterwards he — or someone helping him — tampered with evidence to back up the shooter’s lie.

About now, I — and you, I hope — would have serious doubts about the righteousness of that shoot. Why did he lie? Why was evidence tampered with?

What was his real motivation?

But I’m not really talking about use of defensive force.

Now, suppose someone is passing a law or a new rule that will ban something. It’s something you consider silly, unnecessary, and wasteful. Even potentially dangerous. The rulemaker may honestly believe the item needs to be banned. And it sounds reasonable to you.

But then documentation is presented that shows the rulemaker blatantly lied about what the item does. It simply doesn’t work that way; the lie is contrary to physical reality.

Having any doubts about the rulemaker’s motivation yet?

The ban already seemed reasonable even to you, a person familiar with the topic. It already seemed beyond reasonable and absolutely imperative to a very large segment of the population. And that was before the lie.

So why would the rulemaker bother to lie about it? What does he have to gain? What’s his… future?… motivation?

Bothered yet?

Then you realize there’s another lie, that the item changes the inherent speed at which another device operates, and you know it doesn’t; it’s only an aid for the user. The user can actually do the same thing without the gadget at all.

Why lie about that, too?

This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger

And now that the “bump-stock-type device” ban is set, imagine a change in the DC power structure after the 2020 elections, less than two years away.

What would an administration even less friendly to human/civil rights do with that ban rule and it’s precedent?

Bump stock owners resist ban, in no hurry to surrender devices
“I hadn’t even heard about it,” David Reeh, an operating partner at U.S. Shooting Academy in Tulsa said Wednesday.
[…]
He said the ruling doesn’t raise alarms with him about a slippery slope for future seizures of other guns or gun parts.

I suppose if he hadn’t even heard about, then he certainly never read the NPRM, much less the rule. The ATF was counting on that kind of ignorant complacency. Lies work, if no one questions them.

 

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

“Compliance”: Bump-Stock-TYPE Devices

The bump stock ban rule is out. Bump-fire stocks are now machineguns. To power-crazed tyrants, anyway. But, since FOPA forbids possession of machineguns manufactured or imported later than May 1986, you’ll have to get rid of them.

You want to be good, right?

I suppose you could simply destroy your bump-fire stock, but if the ATF gets hold of some retailers’ customer list and comes knocking, you’ll want some proof that you already complied. You could hang on to the properly cut up pieces (you do have an oxy-acetylene torch?) and show them that.

Or you could turn in your new contraband like a good little citizen. Mail your bump-fire stock to the ATF.

Oh. Wait. That’s “bump-stock-TYPE device.” “Type” is fairly all-inclusive. To be safe, you should send in any bump-fire assist gadgets you have on hand.

Rubber bands come to mind. So do Jeans (belt loops).

For that matter, none of this is needed to bump-fire a rifle; you can do it with bare hands. But you don’t want to ship those off, so represent them with gloves.

Heck, send them a finger.

Again, any semi-auto rifle can be bump-fired, so any stock is a “bump stock,” right? If you happened to replace the original wood stock for your SKS and have the old one laying around…

..send ’em that.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226

Heck, you might even toss some shoestrings in with your bump-fire toys, just in case they change their minds again.

They do that, after all.

Don’t forget to ask for a receipt. You should even consider sending it certified mail.

On the other hand, you might want to keep your stocks. I supppose you could tie 2 bump-stocks together. “No, Mr. ATF. That there is my constitutionally-protected nunchuks.”

 

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

Analyzing the Bump-Stock-Type Devices Rule

Sorry this took so long. It’s 157 pages of bureaucratese. And partway through I got sidetracked by a closely related issue.

The key points are:

  1. It is an outright, ungrandfathered, ban on bump-fire stocks (BSTD; and there’s a reason I’m adopting the ATF’s acronym -grin-), as expected.
  2. It is as bad as expected, reiterating lies.
  3. It is potentially the basis for a complete semi-auto ban, due to the nature of the lies.

I’ll address things as I encountered them as I read the document, so this will ramble.

Page 22 presents an important false claim.

The Department explained that when a shooter who has affixed a bump-stock-type device to a semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, that movement initiates a firing sequence that produces more than one shot. And that firing sequence is “automatic” because the device harnesses the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger, so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device’s ledge (as designed). Accordingly, these devices are included under the definition of “machinegun” and, therefore, come within the purview of the NFA.

They consistently refer to a single trigger pull “initiating a firing sequence.” They treat all other actions of the trigger finger on the trigger as something magical that the BSTD does, not the shooter.

They consistently claim that BSTDs are “automatic” because the device harnesses the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle,” totally ignoring the fact that recoil only disengages the trigger from the finger. Somehow, the BSTD magically redirects the energy to push the trigger against the finger again. Of course, this is a lie; the spring-equipped Akins Accelerator did do that, but springless bump-fire stocks do not. BSTDs require the shooter to manually push the firearm forward with the supporting hand/arm.

As I said, this is a ban, so you have to destroy the BSTD.

Acceptable methods of destruction include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. If the device is made of metal, an alternative acceptable method of destruction is using an oxy/acetylene torch to make three angled cuts that completely severs design features critical to the functionality of the bump-stock-type device. Each cut should remove at least ¼ inch of metal per cut. Any method of destruction must render the device so that it is not readily restorable to a firing condition or is otherwise reduced to scrap. However, as the majority of bump-stock-type devices are made of plastic material, individuals may use a hammer to break them apart so that the device is not readily restorable to a firing condition or is otherwise reduced to scrap, and throw the pieces away.

Turning it in to the ATF is also an option.

However, current possessors also have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF office.

That’s the option I recommend.

The doc spends page upon page addressing specific concerns raised in the public commenting period, mostly to hand-wave and declare, “Nah. We don’t think so.”

Heh.

One commenter said that should ATF be asked to demonstrate the firing of a rifle equipped with a bump-stock-type device with the shooter only using his trigger hand, and no coordinated input from the other hand, it could not be done, as it requires two hands, skill, and coordination.

That was me. Challenge declined, by the way.

The Department disagrees that a shooter repeatedly actuates, functions, or pulls the trigger of a semiautomatic firearm using a bump-stock-type device with the non-trigger hand by “pushing the firearm forward.” In fact, the shooter “pulls” the trigger once and allows the firearm and attached bump-stock-type device to operate until the shooter releases the trigger finger or the constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand. The non-trigger hand never comes in contact with the trigger and does not actuate, function, or pull it. By maintaining constant forward pressure, a shooter relies on the device to capture and direct recoil energy for each subsequent round and requires no further manipulation of the trigger itself.

“relies on the device to capture and direct recoil energy for each subsequent round The BSTD pushes the firearm forward, not the shooter.

In this way, the Department also disagrees that “[r]ecoil is incidental to the firing sequence of a bump-stock type device equipped semiautomatic firearm, not intrinsic.” Without recoil and the capture and directing of that recoil energy, a bump-stock-type device would be no different from a traditional shoulder stock. As numerous commenters acknowledged, bump-stock-type devices allow shooters to fire semiautomatic firearms at a faster rate and in a different manner than they could with traditional shoulder stocks. Bump-stock-type devices do this by capturing and directing recoil mechanically, enabling continuous fire without repeated manual manipulation of the trigger by a shooter.

And things get potentially truly nasty with that. A BSTD would be just like a fixed stock if it — not the shooter, mind you — didn’t magically push the gun forward with mystically redirected recoil forces…

Did they do all their testing with previously banned Akins Accelerators?

But since BSTDs do not push the gun forward, then — by their definition of reality — BSTDs are the same as fixed stocks. If one is banned for being a machinegun… I’ll let you reason that out.

Naturally, they had to address the fact that you can bump-fire a rifle with pretty much everything, no required.

This rule defines the term “automatically” to mean “functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism.” Bump-stock-type devices enable semiautomatic firearms to operate “automatically” because they serve as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism. An item like a belt loop is not a “self-acting or self-regulating mechanism.” When such items are used for bump firing, no device is present to capture and direct the recoil energy; rather, the shooter must do so.

False. The belt loop serves exactly the same function as the bump-fire stock: to help your finger engage the trigger as you pull the firearm forward after recoil.

In fact, the belt-loop method provides a stabilizing point for the trigger finger but relies on the shooter-not a device-to harness the recoil energy so that the trigger automatically re-engages by “bumping” the shooter’s stationary trigger finger.

They are so full of… semi-hard intestinal thing… bump-fire stocks — except the spring-equipped Akins Accelerator — do not “harness the recoil energy” to return the trigger to the finger. The shooter’s tensioned arm does that, whether using bump stock, fixed stock, belt-loop or simply two hands.

In short, a BSTD is an inert object. Anything it does in terms of causing the trigger finger to engage the trigger is same as a fixed stock, or belt loop. If a gun with a bump stock is a machinegun, then so is a gun with a fixed stock, because it can be bump-fired.

Therein lays the potential semi-auto ban. Think not? Imagine if HRC has won in 2016, and this were from her administration.

And then we get to page 113. Though page 117.

Holy carp! This is fishy. They spent five pages discussing commenter’s complaint that they hosed the commenting period by linking to the closed ANPRM instead of the NPRM, and making it impossible to comment online for a brief period. And blow it off as “Too bad.” And they claim they the “online author, whose comments seemed to vanish, direct links to his comments.

I have reason to believe I am the “online author.” 1) I’m a writer for The Zelman Partisans. 2) I made a comment which was misdirected to the ANPRM instead of the NPRM. 3) I noted that comments closed. 4) I contacted the ATF to complain. 5) I wrote about this at the time, as the document describes. (Hi, ATF! So you read my stuff now?) 6) I have a series of emails between myself and the ATF, and a comment about the issue, so I may even be the commenter with which they started this section.

Where I seemingly differ from the “online author” is that no, the ATF did not provide me with direct weblinks to my comments. If that is me, as I think, then they lied. The last email I had from “The Office of Regulatory Affairs” was April 2, 2018, in which they said they’d fixed the problem. That email included the tracking numbers for my comments, but no links. I eventually dug up the direct links myself.

In fact, my last email to the ATF, in which I mentioned that a correspondent still couldn’t comment online — after the issue was supposedly addressed — went unanswered.

(And they gloss over the online commenting failure by claiming tnhat comments could have faxed their comments, ignoring the fact that they still would have had the wrong docket number.

But they lied about 1) BSTDs operate repeatedly with a single trigger pull, 2) BSTDs magically push the gun forward themselves, so why not lie about the rule-making process, as well?

Tomorrow I will offer some suggestions on compliance with this ban.

 

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

Bump-Stock-Type Devices now banned

Acting AG Whitaker signed the rule today.

I will be posting more, after I’ve read the entire 157 page document.

So far, the ban appears to rest on this:

The ruling determined that the phrase “single function of the trigger” in the statutory definition of”machinegun” was best interpreted to mean a “single pull of the trigger.”

They transferred the “definition” of machinegun from the device to the user.

More later.

ADDED: 12/18/2018, 17:27ET: I am working on a detailed analysis, which I’ll publish later as a separate post (there it is). It’s bad, but there’s some mildly amusing — to me anyway — stuff in there.

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

Florida cops get “Stand Your Ground,” too

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) self-defense protections extend to police officers, as well as civilians. I’m going to make two points about this.

1. DUH!

Police officers are persons, too. Of course they’re entitled to the same rights as any other person. That’s a no-brainer.

2. This police shooting was not a SYG situation.

SYG — despite common mischaracterizations in the anti-rights media — is not a “shoot first any time you panic” defense. All it does is two things.

The first: If you are in a situation in which you would otherwise be allowed to use defensive force, you don’t have to try to outrun the bad guy — or his speeding bullets — before defending yourself.

The second: By invoking SYG, the defender no longer has to prove his innocence. It becomes up to the prosecution to prove his guilt. For those who slept through history and government classes, the latter assumption of innocence unless proven guilty is how every other “criminal” case works. It’s embedded in the American legal system, and hearkens all the way back to English common law which is the original basis of American law.

So why do I say this wasn’t SYG?

Deputy Peter Peraza claimed he was defending himself against Jermaine McBean. McBean had a rifle across his shoulders, which Peraza claimed McBean lowered from his shoulders and aimed at him, and McBean ignored orders to drop it. He specifically claimed that there was no reason for McBean to not hear the instructions.

The facts and witnesses say otherwise.

The “rifle” was an unloaded air gun. 911 callers merely said the person was carrying it, not brandishing. At least one witness to the shooting stated that the air gun remained across McBean’s shoulders and that he never pointed it at the officer.

The claim that McBean should have been able to hear instructions — and therefore he willfully ignored them — came into question. Police noted that McBean was not wearing the earbuds which were tucked into his pocket.

And then crime scene photos came out. Immediately after the shooting, pictures show the earbuds still in the deceased’s ears. His family said he was in the habit of listening to music as he walked. But somehow, the dead man managed to remove his earbuds and place them in his pocket, conveniently supporting the officer’s version of events.

Other officers also gave conflicting and contradictory accounts of the incident. The original judge who dismissed charges simply declared the police conflicting statements were due to a difference of perspective, but the civilian just wasn’t credible.

Apparently neither were the photographs showing that someone tampered with evidence to support the police shooting. If you have to lie about why you shot, and tamper with evidence to support the lie, the shooting was probably not good.

Stand Your Ground applies to valid self defense. This wasn’t that.

 

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

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.