Hawaii: That’s not something you see every day

Some Hawaiian legislators have entered a most interesting bill.


Stripped to basics, it calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment, under the guise of “clarification.” Because…

“WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment RENDERS PROHIBITORY AND RESTRICTIVE REGULATION PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL” (emphasis added)

Their argument is that the individual rights “theory” currently — and correctly — held by the Supreme Court makes all their gun control victim-disarming people control laws unconstitutional.

No kidding. All else aside, you’d think they’d have noticed the separate usage of “people” (when talking about… people) and “states” and “congress” in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps they’re public school graduates and were unaware that the first ten amendments were proposed and adopted as a single document.

I was also amused by their claim that the MILLER case declared the Second Amendment to be a collective right. Yep, gotta be public school victims.

No. What MILLER did was merely say that in the absence of evidence that sawed-off shotguns are useful militarily, they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

In fact, in describing militias, the Court specified that it is composed of individual civilians called up for service (and carefully differentiated the militia from government “troops” in regular service). What’s more, those called up for militia service are expected to appear with their own personal weapons. Which, by necessity, they’d have to own before and separately from militia service.

That’s about as individual as it gets. And a strict read of MILLER suggests that those in the militia could be required to own military-grade firearms. (I don’t go that far, but only maintain they must be able to acquire them in time for a call-up.)

The collective right theory of the Second Amendment is a relatively recent invention of gun controllers. It has never been held by the Supreme Court, which always recognized it as a right of individual people. It even factored into the infamous Dred Scott case in 1856, with the majority maintaining that if Scott were recognized as a citizen then he — as an individual — would have the right to bear arms and all other enumerated rights.

I very much hope Hawaii passes this bill. Imagine anyone busted for breaking the state’s gun laws walking into court and declaring, “Your Honor, even the State says this is unconstitutional.”

Ah, but so long as we’re talking about MILLER…

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

TL;DR: Short-barreled shotguns can be regulated under the National Firearms Act because they weren’t shown to be suitable for military use.

I believe that is why the Supreme Court has never granted certiorari for a direct challenge to the NFA since MILLER. NFA items, under that ruling, are things that are not used by the military. Except… machineguns certainly are. And gun controllers whine about “military-grade” or “military-style” “assault weapons.” SCOTUS doesn’t really want to touch that.

Which is probably why the Court keeps granting extensions on the petition for cert in the Kettler NFA challenge. Their cert decision was due in February; they granted two extensions, making it — so far — due by April 22, 2019.


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)

Strictly Speaking

I’d like to thank victim-disarmament advocate Jackie Stellish for admitting that gun control laws are unconstitutional.

The proposed amendment is not the same – ours wants “strict scrutiny.” The “strict scrutiny” language will make it much easier to bring and win legal challenges to Iowa’s gun laws.

It requires “strict scrutiny” be applied to any firearms laws, therefore much more likely a court could strike down important state laws that protect public safety, such as Iowa’s background check, concealed-carry and permit-to-purchase laws.

The concept of strict scrutiny is a binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). More specifically, the infamous Footnote Four.

“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth….”

I could stop there, having shown that — no doubt to Ms. Stellish’s dismay — strict scrutiny must be applied to any gun control law, as they infringe upon the Second “of the first ten amendments.” I needn’t show what the effect of such scrutiny would be because Stellish has already conceded that gun control laws will fail upon close examination. One might wonder, rhetorically, of course, exactly why Jackie Stellish is deliberately and overtly advocating for the violation of human/civil rights through unconstitutional laws. I seem to recall something about “conspiracy against rights.”

But this is educational, and others may not be so insightful as Stellish. I continue.

A law subjected to strict scrutiny must pass three tests. All of them.

  1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
  2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
  3. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.

Take H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 for example.First, it infringes upon a constitutionally enumerated right, so right off strict scrutiny is automatically required. Now the tests.The compelling governmental interest is “to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.” Presumably the intent would be to protect life, one of the Declaration of Independence‘s unalienable rights which “Governments are instituted” to secure.

Test one passed.

Is the law narrowly tailored to achieve that goal? No.

  • It requires everyone wishing to transfer a firearm to prove they aren’t prohibited, not just those who are.
  • It targets all transactions even though government reports confirm that prohibited persons most commonly acquire firearms through unlawful channels (primarily the black market and theft).
  • By far the most commonly used in crime type of firearm is handguns. This bill requires checks for all firearms.
  • Requiring everyone to prove they are not prohibited persons (rather requiring the government to prove they are) is presumption of guilt without due process, and a prior restraint on rights.Test two failed.Is the law the least restrictive means available? No.
    • One could create a toll-free number which any seller could call, input the buyer’s social security number to an automated system, and get an instant pass/fail, and a control number. Instead, both must travel to an FFL, pay a fee, fill out a 4473, the FFL enters the firearm in the bound book, and makes the NICS call. This creates a permanent record of who has what.
    • One could avoid regulating 100 million gun owners, and limit the regulation to prohibited persons. Via NICS, the government already tracks them. Those on parole/probation are already subject to searches, and the dangerously mentally ill shouldn’t be on the street anyway.
    • Since the black market is the primary source of crimes guns, one could ignore other transactions, and concentrate on eliminating that market with existing laws. Firearms trafficking is illegal, after all.

    Test three failed.

    H.R. 8, if passed and signed would be unconstitutional. Not to mention stupid, if the real goal was to reduce gun violence. But we know what they want.

    Shall we apply strict scrutiny to a few more victim-disarmer wet dreams?

    “Assault weapon” ban:
    1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
    2. Narrow – Bans large class of implements rarely used in violent crime, not just the handguns used predominantly. Fail.
    3. Least restrictive – Ban large class of weapons commonly held for defense, when they could simply use sentence enhancement for unlawful use. Fail.

    The ban would be unconstitutional.

    Safe storage”
    1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
    2. Narrow – Requires all defensive tools to be “secured,” even when unnecessary. Fail.
    3. Least restrictive – One could set penalties for intentionally (to meet mens rea requirements) allowing access by a prohibited person or unsupervised child and bad things actually happen. Fail.

    The ban would be unconstitutional.

    Please note that in HELLER the Supreme Court ruled that “safe storage,” even in the form of a trigger lock, fails any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights”, not just strict scrutiny. Defense attorneys, take note.

    1. Interest – Protect life. Check.
    2. Narrow – Similar to background checks. Targets everyone, not criminals. Fail.
    3. Least restrictive – Redundant, since FFL purchases — as yet — require NICS checks. Fail.

    The ban would be unconstitutional.

    The only reason these rights-violating laws stand is the appointment of judges who actively refuse to perform their constitutional and judicial duty to apply strict scrutiny to laws infringing the Second Amendment.


    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!


FPC, FPF Announce Expedited Appeal in Bumpstock Ban Cases

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 4, 2019) — Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed opening briefs in their consolidated appeals with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the ongoing federal litigation challenging the confiscatory “bump-stock” ban rulemaking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Copies of the briefs and related filings are available at BumpStockCase.com.
n the Guedes appeal, FPF argues that the text of the federal statutes at issue in the Final Rule are clear and unambiguous, that the rule of lenity precludes the ATF’s proposed new definition of ‘machinegun’, and that the rule is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The brief also argues that the “district court abused its discretion in finding the statutory language ambiguous and erred as a matter of law in according ATF Chevron deference regarding the terms ‘single function of the trigger’ and ‘automatically’.”

Read the rest


Belling the Cat, Revisited

Back in 2017, shortly after the Mandalay Bay shooting sparked yet another wave of anti-rights advocacy, I noted a little compliance problem. I described what it would take to start firearms confiscations (and presumably arrests). TL;DR: It wouldn’t be pretty.

“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”
Moi, back in the ’90s

But hey; that assumed they wouldn’t know who had what, or where. But what if they could somehow manage registration this time? There’s a reason the socialist Dems are pushing universal “background checks” — preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint –so hard. It isn’t to fight crime, since criminals already bypass such checks with illegal channels. It’s to get a record of all transactions, so they can collate lists from those 4473s. If they can get this through the Senate and the White House (which I do not rule out despite Trump’s — “I’m pro-2A except for bump stocks, age limits, ex parte protective order SWATting…” — statement), the next step would be changing the law to allow the ATF to collect 4473s (which they’ve been doing anyway, during FFL inspections) and enter the information into an electronically searchable database. Once they’ve got that, the next step is to require is gun owners to register themselves and their guns, since anyone who did NICS is already in their files.

Then owner licensing.

All that might take a while, but if the Dems get the White House in 2020, it’ll speed up.

So let’s look ahead and guess what they might do with total registration. Again, we know it won’t have anything to do with fighting violent crime. It’s about us. They really need us disarmed to carry out the Green Raw Deal. Will it work?

No. As it happens, we already have fine examples of owner licensing and firearm registration, coupled with confiscations: California and Illinois.

A year ago, California was using their lists to confiscate firearms from people who’d “lost” their right to keep and bear arms (such as it is in the People’s Republik). They had a backlogged of 10,225 people to shake down. In a multi-agency, two-day operation, they attempted to confiscate weapons from 47 people.

They recovered one gun.

A year later, that backlog increased to more than 23,200. When they know where to go. What to look for.

Then there’s Illinois, where their record keeping is, in actuality, so bad that they issue Firearm Owner IDs — licenses — to felons. Who pass background checks. On those rare occasions, when they realize someone has become prohibited, less than half the time does the person turn in his weapons; probably 6,000 per year still armed. And they can’t figure it out until one of those known criminals goes on a killing spree.

States can’t keep up now, when they know who has how many guns, and where. Go national with another 100,000,000 targets of unknown locations and arms. It would be impossible for them to perform confiscations through unconstitutional law enforcement actions, much less bound by constitutional due process requirements.

With registration — however they attempt it — the government cannot successfully confiscate through normal processes even if they bypassed posse comitatus and use every man, woman, and whatever in the military.

Remember California Representative — and presidential hopeful — Swalwell’s threat of overwhelming military force? That was neither joke nor hyperbole. It was a trial balloon, to see how people — including the usually anti-military left — would react to the idea of waging war against gun owners. Because law enforcement methods demonstrably do not work, and they know it.

Imagine 2020. Trump and the Republicans caved on major campaign promises: border security, killing Obamacare, gun control especially. Sure, Trump still talks the talk, but his actions prove him a liar. And the Senate Republicans let reciprocal carry and hearing protection die.

They alienated their voter base, who turn to anti-Republican protest votes or just stay home. Democrats take the House, Senate, and White House. President Whomever (they’re all pro-Green Raw Deal socialists, and anti-rights) declare a gun violence national emergency. A flurry of disarmament bills pass as fast as the first background check bill of the 116th Congress.

And the military mobilizes; designated cat-bellers.

Pre-Obama, I would have rated the odds of the military going along as being pretty low. But the leadership has been purged and social justice is damned near written into the UCMJ. I’m not taking bets on what they’d do.

But Swalwell and others have told us what they want to do. A declaration of war on America. I suppose they imagine it as a civil war between professional military forces and Bible-clutching deplorables; good reality TV, while they sip Chardonnay.

They should be so lucky. They would be declaring open hunting season, with Clinton Rules of Engagement.

I don’t want that. And neither should they. No one sane does.

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)

Looks like a declaration of war: H.R. 1263

“A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act any semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.”

H.R. 1263 was filed a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been checking congress.gov daily for the text, since the devil is always hiding in the little details. And, frankly, just making nearly every semiautomatic rifle an NFA item already sounds pretty bad.

Any semiauto that takes a detachable magazine — which is anything but .22 rimfire fixed tube magazines — would become an NFA item. That isn’t even the truly bad part.

Here you go:

(b) Applicability.—Any person who, on the date of the enactment of this Act, lawfully owns or possesses a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun (as defined in section 5845(a) of such Code, as amended by this Act) that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device (as defined in such section) shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, register the semiautomatic rifle or shotgun in accordance with section 5841 of such Code. Such registration shall become a part of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record required to be maintained by such section. The prohibition on possession of an unregistered firearm under section 5861 of such Code shall not apply to possession of such a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that has the capacity to accept such a detachable ammunition feeding device on any date that is 120 days or less after the enactment of this Act.

“Register.” Not apply to register. You need a tax stamp within 120 days of enactment. No stamp after the magical date and you’re a felon.

Good luck with that.

It’s currently taking a minimum of 227 days to receive the stamp. That is, it’s taking three months longer than this bill would allow. With existing NFA firearms.

Now throw in Ghu only knows how many millions of newly declared NFA rifles, and the waiting period for approval is going to shoot up into the decades at best.

There are 175,977 transferable machineguns registered now, and it takes better than 7 months to get a stamp. Throw in an estimated 16 million semiauto AR- and AK-pattern rifles into the mix and you’ll have 92 times as many for 92 times the wait, 644 months (I rounded). It’ll take almost 54 years to get your stamp.

Well, longer. I only added ARs and AKs; hardly the only semiauto rifles out there.

Rep. Douche did not set that 120 day limit by mistake. He deliberately crafted a law designed to be absolutely impossible to comply with, even if you were so inclined.

This bill will make it through the Democrat socialist-controlled House. It probably won’t make it through the coward-controlled Senate, but given my own Senator’s lust for shredding the Second Amendment, I’m not sure enough of that to bet.

If it does, it is an outright declaration of war.


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)

Trampling Your Rights, While Missing the Supposed Target

HR 1112, the so-called “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,” just passed the House as expected.

If you haven’t been keeping up, this one was billed as closing what Demoscum Rep. Jim Clyburn calls the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston shooter bought a gun while awaiting trial on a misdemeanor drug charge. A clerical error directed the NICS examiner to the wrong police department when he tried to clarify the charge. As a result, it took longer than the allowed 3 days, and the sale went as a default proceed. CLieburn claims extending the NICS period to 10 days would fix that.

As I said: CLIEburn. He lied. Let’s review some history.

On February 28, 2015, the Charleston asshole was arrested on a misdemeanor drug charge.

He purchased his handgun on April 11, 8 days after his 21st birthday. As noted, the NICS check was delayed.

On June 17, he murdered a bunch of kindly, innocent people who had welcomed him.

During the post-shooting investigation, authorities began to wonder if his arrest should have caused a NICS denial.

Roughly a week after the shooting, “examiners officially denied the Roof application.”

The killer’s NICS denial didn’t take 10 days. It took 74 days to figure maybe he should flunk the NICS check. For arithmetically-challenged congresscreeps, 74 is more than 10. Even with this extension, the chumbucket’s sale would have proceeded.

No preemptively-prove-your-innocence check is going to work, if the people running it won’t do their jobs until after people die.

But here’s the thing: NICS should have approve the sale anyway. The scumbag hadn’t been convicted on that drug charge; the case was still pending. The charge was a misdemeanor, not the felony indictment that makes one prohibited to purchase. And that arrest was apparently his only drug bust, so there weren’t “multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years,” as called for in 27 CFR § 478.11 Meaning of terms.

Probably that’s why Chum-boy bought the gun when he did. He was finally 21 and wanted to get it before the conviction.

So once again, they’re pushing a law to allegedly fix a crime problem, but targeting innocent people. Infringements based upon lie.

“High capacity” magazine bans because Parkland (he used politically correct 10-rounders).

“Assault weapon” bans because Santa Fe (he used a pump shotgun and a revolver).

Universal background checks because Mandalay Bay (he passed background checks).

Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Third time is enemy action. This is an — as yet — undeclared war.


If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)



Guedes et al vs. BATF: Preliminary Injunction Denied

By now, I hope you’ve heard that two cases challenging the bump-fire stock ban suffered a serious setback on Monday.*

David Codrea points out some issues with the ruling and lets us know an appeal has been filed.

Appeal is good. Because that ruling is a mess. Friedrich just shot an upright middle finger to the Constitution, statutory law, administrative procedure, physical reality, and sanity. It’s that bad.

The ruling came Monday, but I’m only know publishing this because of the sheer volume of material I had to review. The ruling itself is 64 pages long. Then there’s the motion for preliminary injunction, the government’s opposition to that, and the Guedes reply to the government response. I was provided with some supplemental material, too.

The Guedes case and the — previously — separate Codrea challenge were consolidated as Guedes et al. So this ruling is twice as damaging as it might’ve been.

The hours I spent studying hundreds of pages of documentation can be summarized quite briefly.

  • A preliminary injunction temporarily stopping implementation of the rule is denied.
  • A preliminary injunction isn’t called for anyway because you can get compensation later… for losing an “unlawful machinegun” for which compensation isn’t offered?
  • Administrative Procedures Act (APA) required 90 days of commenting, not the 85 we got. Tough shit. Unless you can prove someone definitely would have offered something not presented by another commenter, no harm, no foul. So what if their right to speak was denied?
  • APA requires a public hearing, which was denied. Tough shit. ATF said no one would have offered anything new (even though FPC/FPF was trying to do just that).
  • New definitions of old terms. (This will require elaboration below.)
  • The president can appoint acting-anything regardless of the Constitution and statutory law.
  • Judge Dabney L. Friedrich is nuts.

In declaring bump-stock-type devices (BSTD) machineguns, the ATF found it necessary to redefine a couple of terms. A machinegun is “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

While it was long believed that “automatically” referred to the process of chambering, firing, extracting, and reloading, the government’s lawyer, one Eric Soskin, informs us it now means something that “thus allows the ordinary — of the ordinary skill, the ordinary shooter to shoot must [sic] faster.”

“Function of the trigger,” received a similarly crazed reworking. I’ll spare you the pages of argument, but it goes: “function of the trigger” refers to the finger, not the trigger. The government’s definition of machinegun now becomes…

“any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot much faster, without manual reloading, by a single volitional function of the trigger finger.”

With bump-stocks, it no longer matters that the finger engages the trigger and operates it for every shot. Engagement doesn’t count unless the finger itself is intentionally moved to operate that trigger. Volitional movement of other body parts — like the non-trigger hand and arm that move the rifle into the finger — don’t count. They defined the trigger as actually being the finger, or as plaintiff’s attorney Joshua Prince put it:

I think then it becomes the question of whether the person is actually the machine gun, and how are we going to contend with that. Because now if we’re saying for it to operate automatically it has to be the person who actuates it, we’re talking about every single person in the United States and throughout the — through the world as being a machine gun, if that’s the rabbit hole we’re going to go down.

A year ago, I was warning that this made body parts into machineguns, along with anything that can be fired “much faster.” The federal government just went to court and said so. You’re welcome. Please hit my tip jar.

As for pants and rubber bands… that remains to be seen. When all this documentation becomes public, you must read the discussion of rubber bands. When asked if a closet full of semi-auot rifles and a box of rubber bands would be considered by the ATF to be a machinegun, the DOJ lawyer answered:

You know, I think until we — I don’t think we are in a position to come out and give an advisory opinion on what the agency might decide to do with a particular rubber band.

Perhaps you thought I was joking about turning in rubber bands last year, too. Tip jar!

In denying the preliminary injunction, Friedrich found that it was not justified because “the Coalition is unlikely to succeed on these final challenges to the bump stock rule.” She essentially found that the ATF may arbitrarily redefine any word for which Congress neglect to specify a definition (the discussion included “the” and “shall,” and probably should have included “and.”

Friedrich found that federal agencies are not required to follow federal law if they don’t think it would helpful.

And she found that the President can do whatever he wants.

Did I wake up in Maduro’s Venezuela this morning?

I’m sure someone will trot out the old argument that this is Trump’s multidimensional art of the deal. When the ANPRM dropped, it was, “He’s just going to get a bunch of opposed comments so he can say no one really wants this.” When NPRM dropped, it became, “Nah, it a cunning plan to collect comments so the ATF can say they made a mistake and the rule isn’t justified.” When the rule dropped, “His plan is to get this challenged in court so it’ll get tossed as obviously, blatantly illegal.”

Well, it’s in court, and the judge isn’t tossing it. In fact, she says it’s probable that it will stand. And guess who appointed Dabney L. Friedrich, who looks to be upholding the ban, to the DC District Court.

Go ahead, tell me about the dimensional shift to SCOTUS.

Oh, and Friedrich? It’s not “Condrea.”

* That NBC article illustrates just why I will not use that outlet as a source without confirmation. It’s factually wrong on multiple points. The judge did not — yet — uphold the ban. Friedrich did not dismiss the case. And her court is not in Washington state.


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)



Illusions and Justice

Illusions- The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief. An erroneous perception of reality.

Justice- The principle or ideal of just dealing or right action conformity to this principle or ideal, righteousness the justice of their cause.

I confess, I’m one of those poor sods who like to see the best in people I’m close to. I make excuses for them, I try to overlook things, make allowances, tell myself it doesn’t matter, it was an accident and so on and so for ad nauseam. I’ve come to the conclusion that is a very naive way to live, and that there is a better than good chance you will end up getting blind-sided. Then you do the “it’s probably not how it looks, they didn’t mean it” and now you are deceiving yourself, they don’t even have to do it for themselves, you do it for them. How accommodating! Choosing to live with an illusion is a very counter productive, and frankly stupid way to live. Not only are you not able to accomplish things you could be working on, you’re probably working on things you don’t need to be so you’re wasting your valuable time. It can also be fatal. But, I’m far from the only one that struggles with this. Whole segments of populations and countries do as well.

Let’s take a little look at the modern Demoncratic party, the party of the working man as it is thought to be. This is from a email, but I’ll add to it.


Congress was sworn in, and all day long, the media was salivating and fawning over the “remarkable diversity” of the new Democrat members. It was a day of “firsts,” we were told. It was indeed a day of many firsts. While the new Democrat majority offers many members of note, we wanted to highlight a few “firsts” who are examples of the “diversity” that was sworn in today.

#1.Ilhan Omar

The first person who married her brother – in order to commit immigration fraud – ever be elected to Congress. Omar is also the first open supporter of female genital mutilation to ever be elected to Congress. Amazing diversity!

#2. Rashida Tlaib

One of the first Muslim Brotherhood-linked and anti-Semitic candidates to be elected to Congress. She also claims to be a “Palestinian.” And she knows how to swear. Tlaib quote: “Impeach the Mother F_ _ _ _ _ _ President” (First words out of her mouth after being sworn in.)

#3. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Let’s just say she’s the first person elected to Congress who lied about being from the Bronx, and thus,made up her life story. She’s also an overt Marxist. (Not even covert!)

#4. Abigail Spanberger

The first substitute teacher from an Islamist school (nicknamed by law enforcers as ‘terror high’) ever to be elected to Congress.

#5. Donna Shalala

Rep. Shalala was HHS Secretary from 1993 to 2001 under Bill Clinton and worked from 2015 to 2017 at the Clinton Foundation, and in 2016 she admitted in an interview that some significant Clinton Foundation donors received “courtesy appointments” in the Clinton State Department. To top it off,apparently she can’t let go of politics: at 78, she’s the oldest female House freshman in history.

There is is a lot of value put on these important “firsts”. I think if this is the sort of the thing the Demoncratic party values, every person has historic “firsts” they could celebrate that are worthy of joy similar to the election and value of these Demoncratic women.

Your “first” car wreck, the “first” time you get beat up, the “first” time you get robbed, the “first” time you bounce a check, the “first” time you get thrown off your horse, the “first” time you’re lied to by someone you trusted, the “first” time you lose a loved one. All are notable firsts, and if the Demoncrats have a bar that low, well then, I’ve given them more.

So what do these remarkably “diverse” women bring to the table? Anti-semitic, anti-Israel, anti-women’s rights, anti-self defense, anti-freedom. See, they’re against all the good stuff and in lock step with what Nanny Pelosi tells them.. For now, I don’t think she’ll be able to keep them in lock step all that long.

Rashida Tlaib’s Support for BDS

Over 90 Muslims in U.S., almost all of them Democrats, are running for public offices this year

And for the Somali Omar,

Muslim Female Genital Mutilation in America: Legalized by Judge

Somalia, Where 95% Of Girls Undergo Female Genital Mutilation, May Soon Ban Practice

Somalia: Women Shouldn’t Live in Fear of Rape

The Curious Case of Ilhan Omar, This one is very interesting.

One only has to look at how well the Somalis have integrated into the communities where obama dumped them to understand that importing the Somali way of life into American politics is a really bad idea. Or you could just look at how it’s playing out in Germany. Or Sweden.

For a shot of truth for the Falistinian Tlaib,

Palestinians Want to Live in Israel So Badly, They’ll Abandon Their Own Children

The Israeli military has expressed growing concern over a new phenomenon that sees Palestinian parents from Gaza enter Israel to take their children for medical treatment, only to abandon those same children at the Gaza border and disappear.

These are folks who receive official permits from Israel to bring their suffering children for free medical treatment (oh, those nasty Zionists!), and then leave those children at the border, hoping someone will pick them up and care for them.

Either way, the parent(s) in question are more concerned about their own well-being, which they know, contrary to what’s portrayed in the mainstream media, can be best provided for in the Jewish state.


Because the news media #MSM #MediaBias #FakeNews is so good at covering what’s really going on it Israel. IN PHOTOS: ‘Peaceful’ Palestinian Protest at the Gaza Border

But the media has been very, very busy of late. None stop coverage of a heinous even that happened recently. A vicious attack on a defenseless person. It was horrible. And the media covered it in great detail as well as what has happened afterwards. I’m talking about Ori Ansbacher HY’’D.

A beautiful 19-year-old girl, Ori Ansbacher’s remains were found in the Ein Yael forest, south of Jerusalem. Her body was naked with multiple stab wounds to the upper torso.

Ori was a volunteer at a youth center in Jerusalem, she had gone for a walk to the Jerusalem forest to be alone after an argument.

She was spotted by a terrorist who had come into Israel illegally to kill Jews. Yeah, actually I do know what was in his mind. I’ll get to that. She was raped and stabbed repeatedly.

So what is known about the Bucket O’Chum that killed her?

He was arrested two years ago on the Temple Mount, with a knife.

“I want to be a Shaheed,” he declared at the time. When the interrogator asked him how he intended to become a Shaheed, the suspect replied, “I will do it again, I will buy a knife again and I will come back here to go to jail or be a Shaheed. I will do anything in order to go to jail. And if you release me, I’ll come here with a knife and I’ll be a Shaheed.”

I can’t begin to tell you how much I want to correct the spelling on that “shaheed” to more accurately reflect the proper word for this piece of human excrement. He smirked happily for the camera, and helpfully re-enacted the crime for the Israeli police.

And, have you heard any of the harpies on The View mourning Ori? Ms. Madcow? Anyone? Linda Sarsour decrying the violence against women? Any of the pink hatted harridans? No?

Well, the arabs in the Israeli Knesset didn’t either. They didn’t condemn the act, nope MK Aida Touma-Sliman claims Ori Ansbacher murder a heinous crime and shouldn’t stain struggle of ‘Palestinian people’. It wasn’t an act of terror by someone raised and educated to hate Jews, it was a “gender crime”.

I much prefer the response of MK Bezalel Smotrich,

“This despicable terrorist must die, his home must be destroyed, and his family must be deported here and now, without the High Court and without B’Tselem. Simply because our lives come first.”

And of course the Zehut political party has an excellent plan to deal with the arab population living in the Jewish state.

Why, there’s even talk that Israel may cut back the amount of money the give the Falestinian Authority (FA) by a few million. That’s money the FA uses to pay the families of the people that kill Jews, or are killed trying. Yep, Israel pays for the arabs to kill Jews.

Why? Illusions.

Some people labor under the illusion that the arabs are “peace partners”. The arab MK in the Knesset that called it a gender crime isn’t even honest enough to admit what it really is, and instead tries to use the horrific act to bring the conversation back to the “Falistinian struggle”. Hogwash. It’s hard to have a peace process or plan that have turned down every single one offered.

Illusions by the media that they will never be treated in the same manner by an arab. I mean after all, they carry the water for them. Perhaps they could ask Lara Logan or Kim Barker about that? Illusions behind their high security walls in their homes that we don’t need a wall at the border, and we don’t need to screen who is coming in.

Illusions by the Demoncrats that the muslim and communist women they are so proudly promoting have any intention or desire to serve the Americans that elected them.

Illusions by the people that elected those women that they were good candidates and would work for them.

Illusions by RINOs that they are on a good path to staying in “power”, because that’s what it’s about to them.

Illusions, they are everywhere.

And why haven’t you heard or Ori Ansbacher? Because the media was doing what they do best. #FakeNews. They were spreading the illusion of an attack on some low list actor called Jussie Smollett. Who probably didn’t deceive the media, but not having learned their lesson from the Covington High School fiasco bought his line, hook and sinker. Reaction to Jussie Smollett and Covington Case Shows Media’s Agenda.

Yes indeed, the media is all over the false claim of an attack on some minor actor, but the horrific death of a beautiful 19 year old girl receives no attention at all. The illusion of what was really important. It was easy to deceive the media, they wanted to be deceived.

But we don’t. We don’t want illusions that Demoncrats aren’t planning to enact some kind of gun confiscation scheme. We can’t afford illusions that someone will always be there to help or save us.

After services this Shabbat we had Kiddush, lunch. We were all talking, and somehow the Second Amendment or guns came up, don’t recall how that happened. But one of the gentleman at our table related a story about a time when he was in Israel. One of the men showing them the territory of Judea and Samaria was armed. He said someone commented on it, wasn’t he scared living in a place where he had to have a GUN? He smiled and said no. He wasn’t scared, he is an excellent shot. As is his wife, their children and their grandchildren are all excellent shots. He said he was worried about the tour group, Jews living in the diaspora. Because many of them don’t have guns, they rely on someone else to keep them safe. He said I sounded like that man.

That man has no illusions.

As long as people are living with illusions, there will not be, there can not be, justice.



“Do you know the way…”

Out of San Jose?

San Jose leaders propose tougher gun laws
“We’ve seen enough studies demonstrating straw purchasing are endemic particularly among gangs that are purchasing guns, often from gang members who don’t have a prior record,” said Liccardo.

But Liccardo cited national statistics showing about half of all guns used in crimes were purchased illegally – leading to community heartache.

Wait. I think he’s citing Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 which does say 43.2% of crime guns are purchased illegally.

On the black market.

Straw purchases might be as high as 10.8%, but since retail sources accounted for just 7.5%, it seems unlikely.

The mayor is proposing four amendments to the city’s existing gun ordinances. He’ll require video and audio recording of all gun sales in shops, for access by police if needed;

If he’s planning to record “about half of all guns used in crimes […] purchased illegally,” he has to require black market dealers to do recordings. No doubt the costs of compliance will drive them out of business.

prohibit the sale of guns and ammunition within a residence;

That’s already the case in California.

require a license for the sale or transfer of all concealable firearms;

Again, that’s current law.

On the one hand, it’s good to see them waste resources on stupidity that merely duplicates existing laws, instead of imposing new human/civil rights violations. On the other hand, they’re still directing their attention at the wrong target… if this were actually about reducing crime. But this is a state that actively invites and protects criminals, and releases the ones who were stupid enough to be jailed at all. Of course they want to disarm the preferred prey of their real constituency.

On the gripping hand, we have this.

and display information about local gun laws, and post suicide warning signs and prevention programs.

California legalized assisted suicide. But only if you pay a doctor (you know, the “this is our lane” victim disarmers, the folks who kill at least 6.25 times as many people as die by gunfire). Fortunately, I already prepared suitable signs.


They’ll just have to change the law reference to California Health and Safety Code PART 1.85 – End of Life Option Act.

If you are sane, but still in San Jose, get out. Get out of California.


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)

Chicago sez: “Do as we do, because it works so well.”

Chicago mayoral candidate Gery Chico has a plan to fix Chiraq’s little “gun violence” problem: Force Indiana and Wisconsin to inflict Illinois-style victim-disarmament laws on their citizens, suing them if necessary.

‘If we can’t get Indiana and Wisconsin to work with us, we sue ’em’
Chico said more than 60 percent of guns recovered from crime scenes in Chicago arrive from out of state. Previous reports have attributed the largest share—19 percent—to Indiana, which allows gun owners to sell their weapons without background checks or a record of the sale.

I wonder what percentage originated in-state, from felons equipped with FOIDs?

I mean…

A federal class-action suit filed here last fall said 40 percent of firearm-related crimes in Chicago involved guns imported from the suburbs.

The number crime guns originating in Illinois — immediately around your bright shining city — is more than twice as much as those coming from the next leading state?

Let’s jump down that rabbit hole.

According to that report, 40.4% of Chicago’s crime guns do come from a single state: Illinois. The next closest is Indiana at 21.0% almost half IL’s contribution. From there, the next state is Mississippi at 5.1%, ahead of Wisconsin’s diminutive  4.0%. I wonder why he ignores MS? That state doesn’t have deep enough pockets to pick?

How much will the Indiana numbers jump if they were to adopt Illinois’ oh-so-successful model?

Chicago’s problem is Illinois. Maybe Chico should sue the State Police for giving felons FOIDs so they can buy those guns.

He passed the background check when he bought the gun, so I guess his felony was never properly entered into NICS.

What it looks like is that Illinois has created a a system for felons (or other prohibited persons) to verify whether or not they’re in NICS for just 10 bucks and no consequences.

“Hey, look, Jaquan. I got my FOID. My record didn’t make it into NICS. I’m clean.”

“Cool, bro. Here’s a grand. Go buy guns for the gang.”


If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. 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!


Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.

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