Tag Archives: gun control

In a word…

Will President Obama Regulate Guns Out Of Existence?
When he was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a ban on the sale of handguns and all semi-automatic guns as well as a ban on selling guns within five miles of a school or a park. While the president obviously can’t just ban them, he can use regulations to make their lives more difficult.

… Nope.

Lott never really answers his own question. Being an economist, he examines the reasons Obama’s proposed FFL rule changes are unnecessary and pointless: FFL losses to theft are as much as 51 times less than other retail businesses overall, firearms stolen from FFLs are a miniscule fraction of those used to commit crimes. He finally notes the painfully obvious point that Obama simply looks to regulate the ever-lovin’ bejeezus out of FFLs; to eliminate them by the death of a billion bureaucratic paper cuts.

But he doesn’t answer the question: Will — can — the president regulate guns out of existence?

Alcohol Prohibition and the War on (Some) Drugs come to mind. Even in theory (assuming a continuingly complacent Congress and judicial branch, a suitable Constitutional Amendment, and a Putinesque civilian national security force) at most he can regulate lawful commerce in defensive arms into oblivion.

Just like heroin and prescription opioids.

The black markets in weapons would thrive as they do in the gunless Australian paradise. Probably to the point that Mexican cartels would start shipping guns back north of the border.

But that’s merely commerce. Let’s pretend he somehow accomplished what no one has ever managed with a complete ban on weapons or anything else. All commerce — while, gray, and black — goes away.

The existing guns won’t go away, if New York’s attempt to merely register “assault weapons” is an indicator. Australia’s approximately 20% compliance rate should be another hint.

America has the highest number of firearms per capita in the world. Conservative estimates put the number over 350 million firearms in civilian hands. Higher estimates put the number closer to 750 million two decades ago. Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in between on the higher end of the range.

Still pretending, let’s say Americans generally are more like Aussies than New Yorkers in being compliant. Twenty percent of guns turned in leaves anywhere from 280 million to 600 million firearms in the hands where they belong. Without a black market bringing in more.

The gun grabbers who want to believe that the number of firearms owners is decreasing would have us believe (despite record sales for years) that only 30% of households have guns. (Clearly they’ve never been to Georgia or New Hampshire.) Call it 94 million armed citizens. Twenty percent compliance leaves around 75 million armed citizens. 75 million who won’t turn in their guns, so someone will have to come take them.

You’re going to need a bigger civilian national security force, Barry.

Maybe of those 75 million, only Three Percent(ers) will actively resist. That’s only two and quarter million armed and pissed off folks. They would probably get one or two jackbooted thugs apiece before going down.

Hell, Barry, you may need a draft for your civilian national security force. And Obamacare isn’t going to handle the medical needs of the survivors.

Odds are, ATF kitty-stompers would lead the confiscation teams. Given tactics like that, how long would it take for IIIpers to take the battle to the thugs? Why, some of the (previously) nonviolent resistors might be motivated to participate. That 1 resistor:2 thugs ratio is going to go a lot higher.

The heck with the brownshirts, Barry; you’d need to call out the active military.

Of course, taking the famous Twenty-nine Palms Survey at face value, only around 26% of the troops would participate. Of 2.1 million active and reserve troops, that will hypothetically yield 546,000 thousand door-kicking oathbreakers.

Versus at least two and quarter million pissed-off shooters.

One might wonder what our NATO and other allies are going to do when Obama pulls a Trump and withdraws all those troops to steal guns back home. One needn’t wonder what North Korea’s Kim Jong-un would think, though: “A united Korea!” Daesh now…

No, Obama can’t regulate guns out of existence. But with enough psychotic enablers he can regulate civil war and world conflict into existence.  Because some of us will never forget.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on 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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Russia: History repeats itself

Cross-posted at the Liberty Zone with slight modifications.


I’ve been trying to find this article in English, but for some reason, all I find is really crappy translations of what is actually written. Those of you who read Russian can head over to the first link.

Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?
Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?

Bottom line: Russian President Vladimir Putin has created a “National Guard” (Нацгвардия), but it’s not like the National Guard we’re accustomed to. While Putin claims this armed force, which incorporates some of the Interior Ministry troops, is created specifically to address terrorism, transnational organized crime, and arms trafficking in the country, it as a way to continue consolidating power in the presidency. It is a ministry-level organization that falls directly under the control of the President.

“If you have noticed, this decision is not simply related to detaching the interior troops from the Interior Ministry. But this has been done so that this new structure will now concentrate all that is connected with firearms. This refers to various kinds of security provision and the authorization system [to get the right to possess firearms], ensure oversight of private security firms and this also refers to interior troops proper,” Putin said.

Yes, I know the translation sucks, but think about this for a moment. The Russian president, who already has been well on the path to grabbing power, censorship, stringent nationalism, and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country’s neighbors, is now creating himself a little army that’s focusing not just on terrorism and TOC, but also firearms trade. By the way, the Russian Federation in November 2014 eased firearms restrictions to allow its citizens to carry firearms for self defense, but now Putin is controlling some pretty powerful military troops who focus internally.

Call me crazy and untrusting, but I wouldn’t want any government – especially not an authoritarian crap weasel like Putin – having control of his own little army that can be used against the citizenry, and given Russia’s pivot back toward statism in the past few years, this Нацгвардия is more than concerning.

We view the right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny. The fact that Putin has now created an armed entity, controlled solely by him, to focus on “all that is connected with firearms” should tell you everything you need to know about where that nation is headed internally. No, it is not becoming a free nation. Those of us who were mildly surprised and gratified when the Russian government loosened gun laws a year and a half ago can go back to being disgusted. Russia is still ruled by a cunning authoritarian with the aim of subjugating those around him to his will. And the best way to do that, is to use the military (I don’t care what you call them – internal troops, security troops, national guard, whatever) to ensure that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is tightly regulated and controlled.

Because as the Russian economy swirls the drain, and as Russia becomes a more and more aggressive force toward its neighbors, you can be sure that the regular people’s lives will be more controlled and more miserable. And the Russian government needs to ensure that the people don’t use their right to remove the source of their misery with armed force.

Everything old is new again.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Happy Patriots’ Day

Celebrating Americans resisting gun grabbers at Lexington-Concord.

minuteman-statute

Oh.

Wait.

Town of Lexington Voting To Ban Commonly Owned Firearms & Magazines
For the record. The basic premise of Rotberg’s Article 34 is an insult to all law abiding gun owners. His logic is also flawed in that he insinuates that a gun is inherently “dangerous”. A firearm is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything on its own. The only thing that has the potential for being dangerous is the person and there is nothing in any of the versions of Article 34 which addresses this. It’s just more bigotry, harassment and blame of lawful gun owners.

Never mind.

-sigh-

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Not statistically significant”

Oh, look. Another Johns Hopkins study examining the effects of recognizing human/civil rights.

Changes in state policies impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers
The researchers looked at the relationship between assault data involving law enforcement officers and changes in three policies at the state level: three-strikes laws, which impose mandatory decades-long sentences when a criminal is convicted of a third crime; right-to-carry or concealed-carry laws, which reduce restrictions for individuals to carry concealed firearms in public; and permit-to-purchase measures, which require prospective handgun purchasers to obtain a permit or license after passing a background check.

And what did they find?

The authors found that three-strikes laws were associated with a 33 percent increase in the risk of fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and a 62 percent increase in fatal non-handgun assaults.
[…]
“In the case of three-strikes laws, it appears that chronic offenders may be killing officers to evade capture and possible life imprisonment,” Crifasi says.

Surprise, surprise. Back when I was a peace officer, we predicted exactly that.

What about right to carry/concealed carry?

Previous research has examined the link between right-to-carry or concealed-carry gun laws on fatal assaults in the general population. The Bloomberg School study is believed to be the first to examine the effects of these laws on both fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and found no associations between the laws and either type of assault against officers.

Probably because lawful carriers are usually the type…

Oh. Wait.

“Many of those most likely to commit firearm violence are prohibited from possessing firearms and therefore unable to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun.”

Who’d a thunk it? People who go to all the trouble of background checks and licenses don’t attack cops.

And permits to purchase?

The number of officers who died in Missouri is too small to make any conclusions about fatal assaults.
[…]
[Connecticut’s] association was also not statistically significant due to the rarity of these deaths.

Again, the folks prone to shooting cops (see above re:three strikes) don’t bother with permits they couldn’t get anyway. Now, if they’d been honest and tried to correlate straw purchase prosecutions with officer attacks, they might’ve seen something. But probably “not statistically significant.”

For the anti-gun Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, even allowing for the spin, that’s an amazing admission. They can’t possibly leave it at that, right?

Right.

Although the rates of fatal assaults on law enforcement officers have declined over the past several decades, their homicide rates are consistently higher than that of the general population and higher compared with other public service occupations. Most of the fatal assaults against law enforcement officers are committed by firearm.

In fact, the civilian homicide rate for 2013 was 4.6 per 100K. The cops? 5.3 per 100K. As Reason notes, 3.3/100K if you exclude two accidental shootings. For 2014, the CDC says the overall homicide rate in the US was 5.19 per 100K. Frankly, any difference between civilian and LEO homicide rates is “not statistically significant.”

If Johns Hopkins was honest, that press release would have been titled,“Most changes in state policies DON’T impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers.” But being Johns Hopkins, they had to lump in restrictions on honest folk to demonize gun owners by association.

Your tax dollars at work.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

[Update 3] – I’m fairly sure that “iPhone gun” is a hoax

You’ve seen the hype over the Ideal Conceal “phone gun.” Who hasn’t?

But I’ll bet you haven’t seen a photograph of it. Every picture I can find is a computer-rendered image taken from the company web site.

Like this one:

ic-pocket-street

Now look closely at that hand gripping the “gun.”

ic-pocket-street-closeup

Try it yourself. Hold your phone (or paperback book, or any rectangular thingie) by the corner like that. It’s a poor photoshop. Even the street scene.

stock-photo-dark-street-in-tel-aviv-israel-38249383

Look familiar?

I emailed Ideal Conceal (and why do you suppose he’s using Gmail, instead of a more professional-apppearing idealconceal.com email address?) to ask for a photograph of the actual prototype; the idea being to establish that a real, physical product exists. Or not.

Kjellberg sent two more renderings. No photographs. Interestingly, the two image files are named “phun-gun-img-003e.jpg” and “phun-gun-img-004b.png.”

Phun = Fun? How professional.

When I pointed out that I wanted a photograph as a response to those who doubt the existence of the Ideal Conceal, he replied:

Unfortunately we don’t have a prototype that we are showing to the public. I have told every news agency and persons who contact us that info.

We will be releasing video etc when it is ready.

Doubters with doubt….

Thanks Kirk Kjellberg

Kjellberg  claims he’ll be building these guns. That’s real interesting, because the ATF only shows Ideal Conceal having a Type 01 dealer license. More interesting is the address given for Ideal Conceal: 4300 SCHOOL BOULEVARD

It’s currently up for sale, according to that link. An office building, not a factory.

A whois on the domain idealconceal.com shows:

Updated Date: 29-jan-2016
Creation Date: 16-aug-2015
Expiration Date: 16-aug-2016

A one year registration? Expiring before he plans to start shipping in October?

Whois also shows a different street address than that in the ATF records: 9127 Highway 25. I doubt that he’s manufacturing an oversized, stupidly designed derringer there, either. Since he claims he’s already taken 4,000 preorders, he’d better find — and equip… and man — a factory fast.

Especially if he’s taken money in advance on those preorders, someone might want to talk to the Minnesota Attorney General about potential fraud.

Or not. Maybe he isn’t accepting payments yet.

So if it isn’t a financial scam, what might be motivating the guy?

kjellberg-fb

Thanks to Mitchell Boone for finding that F******k post. If you’re having trouble reading that, it says:


Kirk Ennis Kjellburg
December 19, 2012
Dear Gun Lovers, let me introduce you to playground rules. When enough stupid kids can’t play say king of the hill nicely, they take away the hill. Use your brain, somehow this has to stop. Shouting for gun rights when the bodies of 20 children lay dead is about as selfish as it gets…

Yep. He wants to punish everyone who didn’t do it for the actions of Some Asshole who killed his mother and stole her guns to go on a rampage. Some pro-gun advocate.

I think we’re looking at the same sort of anti-RKBA action as the bogus RNC open carry petition. An attempt to embarrass gun owners and make us look bad.

Perhaps my guess is incorrect. If Kjellberg wishes to correct any misconceptions, I’d like him to answer some questions, and provide a little data.

Unless and until we hear from Kjellberg, I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone to preorder an Ideal Conceal pistol.

Update, 4/12/16: Aha! I found an article that I missed in the last round.

“Right now there isn’t a firing prototype all I have is a plastic model of it so once there’s a firing prototype people will feel more comfortable about how it deploys, how it shoots and that kind of stuff”, said Kjellberg.

I was right: No prototype; just a nonfunctional plastic model. Since he claims he’ll be shipping in five or six months, that motivational speaker/claims adjuster/microwave salesman better hurry up and get a manufacturer’s license, not to mention someone capable of designing a working gun since his LinkedIn page doesn’t suggest any engineering experience or training.

And no, Kjellberg has not contacted me to answer any of the above questions.

Update 2, 4/14/16: Kjellberg is now admitting that he is not a licensed manufacturer.The current story is:

“He isn’t properly licensed to manufacture such a weapon, though, so he connected with a friend at a Big Lake engineering company that has federal clearance for weapon design.”

I see three type 07 FFLs in Big Lake:

Interestingly, Bondhus Arms is marketing its own .380 concealment pistol, the CL380.

bondhus-arms-cl380

While there does seem to be a working prototype, and they have a real approved patent, it doesn’t seem to be for sale yet (“later this year”). I wonder if Bondhus Arms would actually build its competitor’s .380.

I’ve sent messages to MPI and Bondhus asking if they are the manufacturer Kjellberg mentions. I’ve also contacted the ATF with some general inquiries (AOW, etc.).

Nope; nothing from Kjellberg yet.

Update 3, 4/15/16: Still nothing from Kjellberg. But the ATF responded. A company has problems when it’s response time is worse than a federal bureaucracy.

Basically, since Kjellberg doesn’t have even a prototype, and apparently hasn’t submitted anything to the ATF, they couldn’t answer most of my questions. I got the extremely vague answer I expected.

Mr. Bussjaeger: Thank you for your inquiry and concern in regards to the pistol that appears to be a cellphone. As ATF understands it, the proposed manufacturer of this firearm does not even yet have an operable prototype. If the company chooses, it can submit to ATF for determination the classification of the firearm. The ATF enforces two primary Federal firearms laws: the Gun Control Act (GCA) and the National Firearms Act (NFA). Based on the information ATF currently has on this proposed firearm, it would be lawful to manufacture under the Gun Control Act (GCA). So, to address your concerns: Based on what ATF knows of this proposed firearm at this time, it would be both lawful to manufacture and own/possess under Federal firearms laws. Again, ATF’s responsibility is to enforce Federal firearms laws as they exist and as stated, based on what ATF currently knows about the proposed firearm it would be lawful under current Federal firearms laws. Thank you.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Excusing terrorism, and blaming those who didn’t do it

While the main focus of The Zelman Partisans is the right to keep and bear arms from a Jewish perspective, sometimes we just have to look a little further.  Catholic Pope Francis is dancing in the blood of Brussels.

Pope Washes Feet of Refugees, Blames Brussels on Arms Industry
“Three days ago, there was a gesture of war, of destruction, in a city of Europe by people who don’t want to live in peace,” he said.

Behind that gesture there were arms manufacturers, arms traffickers, who want blood, not peace, who want war, not brotherhood,” he said. (emphasis added-cb)

If I were still a practicing Catholic, I wouldn’t be anymore.

Oddly enough, I had the impression the Brussels attack was carried out by violent Islamic terrorists. Daesh certainly seems to think so. I stand corrected: It was Smith & Wesson, or something like that.

When did S&W, Ruger, Remington, or whoever go into the homemade TATP bomb business? It doesn’t seem like a profitable product, since it’s already easy to make from readily available precursors. And shipping it around the world is problematic, what with it being so unstable as to spontaneously detonate as it ages.

It’s true that there was an initial report of shots fired, and some sort of “Kalashnikov rifle” or two being found at the airport, but that seems to have been dropped from the narrative. For now, the reports of the airport and train station attacks are bombs only.

Homemade bombs.

While some may dispute it, the fact is that Francis is a socialist. And he’s simply using the Brussels horror as an — irrational — excuse to attack those “evil capitalists” selling stuff. Even when they weren’t involved. Francis’ embrace of socialism is more than a little ironic, since socialism tends to be hostile to other faiths.

Francis has abandoned his old Christian faith for one that conservatively killed more than 129 million people in less than a century. And here he is helping that along by deflecting blame for dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, from the terrorists who did it, to his real enemy: capitalism.

And naturally, as a pacifist-leaning blood-dancer (except when it comes to protecting his butt), he chose weapons manufacturers as his particular bugaboo in this case because socialism needs its victims disarmed.

Sadly, many Jews have also fallen for socialism and victim disarmament.

The Zelman Partisans have not.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dear Douchestick – Don’t quit your day job

I’m a science fiction geek. I love the Star Wars movies, the superhero comic movies, classic science fiction from Asimov, Heinlein, and Bradbury, and yes, even the Star Trek reboots (please don’t start throwing tomatoes at me)!

What makes me absolutely crazy is actors whom I otherwise admire, deciding to use their rather large soapbox to push odious political agendas. They have a mike. They have the influence by virtue of being famous, and by having numerous admirers. And they take advantage of these tools to spout about issues on which they are often ignorant. Ridiculously ignorant. So stupid…

Can you see why the sci-fi nerd in me wants to take Hamill’s light saber and stick it up his… ignorance?

Mark Hamill – a guy who played what essentially is a citizen warrior rebel against a powerful authority – is now telling us that we, peons, only have the right to keep and bear arms that existed at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights and promoting more government control over We the People!

I’m not even going to touch the whole “dumbass can’t spell ‘amendment'” issue!

The problem with celebrities promoting idiot causes is that many times, while their intentions may be good, their ignorance of the issue prevents them from seeing just how stupid their statements are!

If Hamill is convinced that the Second Amendment only protects the right to own a musket, then the First Amendment only protects his right to spew his lunacy using 18th Century writing implements. His right to spew on national television is not protected, and I’m pretty sure the Founders didn’t have Internet either!

And of course, the ever-present loons at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown, glommed onto Hamill’s douchery like dobermans on a tasty steak! Because there’s nothing these authoritarian tools love more than idiot celebrities who promote their causes for them!

Here’s a clue, Mr. Hamill: stick to your day job. You’re a decent actor, but constitutional law, philosophical discussions about natural rights, and history are not your strong suits.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Perfect Storm of Stupidity

That’s what you get when a HuffPo editor asks an Atlantic editor questions on MSNBC. I’m surprised viewers’ television sets didn’t tip over to the left.

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - MARCH 22: A plume of smoke rises over Brussels airport after the controlled explosion of a third device in Zaventem Bruxelles International Airport after a terrorist attack on March 22, 2016 in Brussels, Belgium. At least 31 people are thought to have been killed after Brussels airport and a Metro station were targeted by explosions. The attacks come just days after a key suspect in the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was captured in Brussels. (Photo by Sylvain Lefevre/Getty Images)

MSNBC Pundit Blames ‘Ease of Getting Guns’ for Brussels Bombing
Stein: “I guess that’s a bit of a surprise to us around the table because the city was on high alert owing to the arrest [of Salah Abdeslam] … why is Brussels and Belgium at large being the epicenter for this? What is it about that city that allows something like this to fester?”

Clemons: “I had wanted to ask him, ‘You know, why is it known that it’s so easy to access guns in Belgium than other of the major states in Europe, it’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market, that there is an ease of getting guns here. As compared to many other parts of Europe.'”

Admittedly, early reports claimed a few witnesses heard gunshots; likewise early reports claimed one or two “Kalashnikov rifles” were found on the scene (but not specifically linked to the terrorists). Now, firearms seem to have dropped out of the narrative altogether, with casualties inflicted solely by bombs. If any victim suffered a gunshot wound, the report hasn’t made it into any story I’ve found. Blaming firearms for this horrific bomb attack is typical victim disarmers dancing in the blood, gleeful over yet another invented excuse to ban defensive tools.

But that “ease of getting guns;” just how easy is it in Belgium to get a firearm?

Not very: “Belgium’s weapons law now places it among the group of countries that regard civilian firearm ownership as a restricted privilege rather than a basic, constitutionally protected right. The restrictive character of the Belgian gun law shows itself in the fact that access to weapons considered ill-suited for civilian use is restricted or even prohibited; that a ‘good cause’ for gun ownership is required; and that a series of checks on criminal record and mental fitness must be performed before an authorization can be issued.”

To own a firearm requires a license. To get a license, you have to provide proof that it is for an approved purpose (personal protection doesn’t count unless additional conditions exist). You undergo multiple background checks. You undergo a mental health examination. You have to pass knowledge and skill tests. The authorities can still decide you simply can’t have a firearm even if you pass all the checks.

If you get a license, you’re still limited in what you can own. Assault rifles? Right out; prohibited. That means the briefly alleged “Kalashnikov rifle(s)” were illegal, unlicensed.

An interesting side note: Current Belgian law with all its restrictions on firearms was prompted by a 2006 shooting in which the killer used a lever-action rifle, not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle. Belgian laws are considered to be more restrictive than required by the EU’s Firearms Directive 91/477.  While America has a Second Amendment protecting our rights, the EU has substituted 91/477, which requires member countries to impose draconian restrictions on civilian firearms/ammunition possession. Such restrictions happen to include pretty much any “Kalashnikov rifle.”

Clemons continued to babble, “[I]t’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market.”

Not really. At one time, Belgium was a source for certain types of old weapons, manufactured before 1895; roughly analogous to America’s classification of firearms manufactured before 1899 to be antiques not considered firearms (and there was some confusion as whether firearms designed before 1895, but of more modern manufacture were allowed). Such guns could be possessed without a license, and people would come to Belgium to buy them and take them back to their home countries, bypassing local restrictions. But years ago, Begium changed their law on such arms. The only unlicensed antiques allowed are thoroughly deactivated guns and those that fire black powder only; any gun that can handle smokeless powder must be licensed. Or sold in a black market that is, by definition, illegal.

Unless some time-traveler took the blueprints for a Kalashnikov back to 1894 and built an AK-47 that runs on black powder, the hypothetical “Kalashnikov rifle” in the Brussels attack was quite illegal. It would have been smuggled in, possibly sold in a market far blacker than Belgium’s old market for antiques.

Such a black market might even carry the makings of the bombs the murderers actually used.

Belgium’s “lax” laws on firearms — more restrictive than EU guidelines, and more so than what American victim disarmers claim they want here — didn’t stop terrorists hell-bent on blowing up innocent people. And we’ll never know if Belgium’s restrictions disarmed someone who might have saved a life or two.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Merrick Garland on gun rights: Not just no, but HELL NO!

garlandThe Zelman Partisans strongly opposes President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court.

This is not just because a new Supreme Court Justice should be nominated by the next President of the United States – no matter who wins that office – and not someone who is committing a “hit-and-run” on the Supreme Court on his way out the door with the rest of the nation left to deal with the consequences for years to come.

This is not just because the American people should have the opportunity to express their views on the next Supreme Court Justice at the ballot box by their choice of POTUS.

This is because Merrick Garland would be a steadfast, true voice that would tip the nation’s highest court in the direction of total destruction of our gun rights.

Erich Pratt, executive director of the group Gun Owners of America, said Mr. Obama chose a “radical leftist” in Judge Garland despite promises to nominate a consensus candidate.

“He supported the D.C. gun ban in 2007, thereby showing he opposes self-defense and opposes the right to keep and bear arms,” Mr. Pratt said.

That 2007 case, Parker v. District of Columbia, ultimately became the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Before it reached the high court, it was heard in Judge Garland’s circuit, and a three-judge panel ruled that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. Judge Garland wasn’t part of that decision, but he did join three other judges in trying to have the full court get a chance to overturn the ruling.

National Review digs further into Garland’s anti-gun views.

Garland voted… to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but… the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland’s lack of respect for the people’s fundamental rights is unacceptable. The Obama Administration was obviously a failure at implementing much of the gun control plans it was pushing, even though it consistently used every tragedy to its advantage.

So now Barack Obama is trying to preserve his statist, anti-gun legacy by nominating a Supreme Court Justice who would do it for him.

No. Just no!

Barack Obama has already foisted one obviously biased Justice on the rest of us – a Justice whose support for ObamaCare was well known, and who did not recuse herself when King v. Burwell was argued in front of the Supreme Court.

We certainly don’t need another Justice whose grasp on the Constitution is tenuous and definition of “objectivity” only involves issues with which he agrees.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Hey, Moron”

EJ Montini hates it when people tell him the truth.

He is a moron, at least when he babbles about victim disarmament.

Montini: “Hey, moron, name one ‘common sense’ gun law”
“Hey, moron, name me one ‘common sense’ gun law, let alone a bunch. You can’t, can you? Because all you want to do is confiscate everybody’s weapons. That’s the only ‘common sense’ gun law liberal pissants like you want. Admit it! And by the way, I called you a moron earlier because I thought if I called you a (expletive) – which is what you are – you wouldn’t keep reading.”

Okay then.

Fisking time; let’s see how sensible his proposals are:

  • The one I mention most often is a universal, no loophole, no exception background check on every gun sale.
    That isn’t sensible until he proposes a way to enforce that on criminals who bypass universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks by purchasing stolen guns on the street from other criminals. They don’t comply now. And they don’t have to.
  • It’s been shown in poll after poll that a vast majority of Americans – up to 90 percent – support it.
    Except that when that 90+% claim was put to the test in an Washington [edited to correct state] referendum, only 60% voted for it. In New Hampshire, the claim was 94%, but the surveyors refused to release their raw data to prove it, and the folks there keep electing (and reelecting) folks who vote it down. (Oddly enough, I have never been polled on that subject, except by a couple of painfully obvious push polls in which I refused to participate. I never found anyone — not one, pro or anti — who claimed to have participated in the NH “survey.”)
  • We could ban the sale or possession of armor piercing and hollow-tip bullets, and we could limit magazines to 10 bullets.
    So he doesn’t want rounds that penetrate too much, but he doesn’t want rounds that limit penetration. “Sensible.” As stated, that isn’t going to fly with anyone. Pretty much any rifle round is “armor penetrating” (unless you only count Level 4+), and armor penetrating handgun ammunition is already banned at the federal level and in several states; it doesn’t seem to have had much effect on crime rates. Defenders and hunters want expansion because it’s more effective, generally, than solid rounds.
  • We could codify in law a wider access to mental health records in order to prevent individuals with serious illness from buying weapons.
    Oh, goody. Let’s start by looking at his health records. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear by putting his unredacted files on the Internet. In fact, we already have laws in place to handle the dangerously disturbed. Those who have been adjudicated a danger to self or others are prohibited persons. Or do you just want to do away with the due process part of depriving people of human/civil rights. Did he get a mental health exam before exercising his 1st Amendment right to write that column?
  • We could repeal the idiotic 1996 congressional budget amendment that prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from doing studies on firearms ownership and the effects on public health.
    There is no such research ban to repeal. Wouldn’t it have been “sensible” for MorMontini to figure that out before spouting off?
  • We could expand gun-owning restrictions to more individuals convicted of crimes like domestic violence, stalking and more.
    Those convicted of domestic violence (and any crime punishable by a sentence of more than a year in prison) are already prohibited persons. You know, like the recent Kansas shooter, who was a convicted felon, under a restraining order, who bypassed PPYI checks. “And more…” Maybe we could add “practicing journalism without a license” to that list.
  • We could establish a national waiting period for gun purchases.
    Who could possibly object to that, right? Certainly not Ms. Bowne. Anymore. I wonder what Montini is planning to do, if he needs to be sure his friends and family can’t get a defensive tool quickly.
  • Finally, a law limiting angry impulse responses to news columnists might be helpful. At least to me.
    Well, it’s clear that he wants violations of 1st Amendment free discourse, so I guess he’s cool with the journalist licensing plan.

So long as Montini is determined to sound like an uninformed moron intent on destroying individual human/civil rights (obviously starting with the First and Second Amendments) people are bound to keep thinking he is one.

No.

Your move, Montini.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail