Category Archives: gun control

Nevada Legislative Alert

Nevada Firearms Coalition
NVFAC Urgent Alert

When the current legislature was elected, a majority of the members as well as the governor were of the same party which had made anti gun legislation promises during their campaigns. We knew we were in for a tough fight to protect our rights, but we felt we would be entitled to have the regular legislative process in place.

Yesterday we learned that the majority party is suspending the rules of the legislature by announcing a bill late in the day on Monday February 11th and then having a joint hearing on the bill the very next day. We also learned that a Bloomberg group had been notified earlier and is planning a demonstration on the day of the hearing. All this was done in secret to keep the Second Amendment supporters in the dark and preventing public testimony that would be contrary to their gun control efforts.

This process cannot be tolerated in a Constitutional Republic. Please let your legislators know that you do not approve of this tactic and request that the regular rules of the legislature be immediately restored. Also go to our web page at www.nvfacpac.org and sign up for our legislative alerts.

The hearing for this bill will be held at 8 am on February 12 in Carson City and the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas. The hearing will be one hour for pro testimony, one hour for con testimony, one hour for neutral testimony and then public testimony. NVFAC and NRA-ILA will be testifying at the Con testimony. You are urged to attend and testify at the “public comment” session which will start after the neutral testimony. If you are able to attend but can’t or don’t want to testify, please sign in under the “opposed” category. Numbers count and you are important.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Law and Order: War on Western Society Part 5

Demonstrating perseveration, liberals insisting they don’t want to take away anyone’s guns is like the government telling plains Indians, because no tracks have been laid is proof trains will never come through their land.” Author

I Recently returned from Monaco celebrating Lewis Hamilton’s fifth Formula 1 World Championship, the Port Palace Hotel, (7 Avenue, Kennedy, Monaco) is fabulous. Hamilton, who is British and Black,2 joins Argentinian Juan Manuel Fangio at that mark with German Michael Schumacher holding the record at seven. Okay, I wasn’t really in Monaco. My family popped corks in the states. Cheers. But all was not well.

To my chagrin, the Great Unwashed turned Congress over to trolls who despise the U.S., hate its Constitution, and hate its Judeo-Christian foundations. I kind of understand young sock-puppet Millennials voting for neo-Marxist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (or is it Evita?) in spite of her abysmal ignorance of economics, history, and the Constitution after all, they probably went to public schools. When run by liberals, dumb kids showing up at school house doors (Alyssa Milano) graduate even dumber. What I can’t fathom is how anyone could vote for reprehensible batrachian Nancy Pelosi whose former career, if I’m not mistaken, included playing Miss Gulch, the woman who took Dorothy’s dog away. Technology doesn’t exist capable of measuring her level of arrogance, pomposity, and deceitfulness. Were she attached to a polygraph, it’d explode the moment she opened her mouth. Rumor has it she and Cher recently tussled on the floor of their plastic surgeon’s office over the last bottles of collagen, Botox, and a Styrofoam cooler of baby’s skin for grafting.

In Part 1, I observed writing on race and crime was akin to crossing a mine-infested no-man’s land. On one side is a race hurting from wounds inflicted through discrimination and hatred. They search for acceptance leading to healing. On the other is a race who, to some degree, exacerbate the crisis by indifference. It’s expressed through attitudes like; “Crime ain’t happening in my neighborhood, why should I care?” Or “I had nothing to do with racism, it all happened in the past, so, why are these people still so angry?” And worse; “It’s a black thing.” They relate to blacks as if the latter are recent immigrants rather than having been in America, almost from the start, as American as the white man.

Ah, but perched like vultures in burned out trees overlooking the no-man’s land of racial division are today’s young Neo-Marxists, ready to swoop down on anyone daring to address race and crime in a fair and honest way. Blacks willing to do so are chastised as “traitors, Uncle-Toms,” and “racial-sellouts.” For whites willing to address the sources of the problem come shrill high pitched harridan shrieks of “racist” from the twisted fever spittled lips of Left-wingers. White flimsy-bodied Kulak-haters in black unitards regret none of the mayhem, destruction, and death they’ve unleashed in minority communities by stoking the flames of mistrust and animosity. They need it. Social disorder is vital to the Left’s strategy to realize their great project; subordinating the individual to the all-powerful state. Their route to power has never been the ballot box. It’s riding the crest of a wave of mass social unrest and violence as they did in Russia, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Palo Alto. Racial division is a tool useful for the left in breaking down social order. Their technique is to whip up anger among blacks, goad them into acts of civil disobedience, and provoke overreaction by police like the 1960s, and then the revolution is on. Unless issues of race are addressed honestly, reconciliation remains a pipedream. If you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. As painful as it might be, the starting point is facing reality.

In 1999, Walter E. Williams, black Professor of Economics (George Mason University) wrote that “most violent crime in America, in our country, is committed by blacks.” They commit 54 percent of all murders, 42 percent of rapes, and almost 60 percent of robberies. With respect to interracial crime, “blacks are fifty times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites that whites against blacks.” Most of the violence is intra-racial with 93 percent of black homicide victims killed by other blacks.3 What the Left fails to mention is less than a hundred years after the end of slavery, a higher percentage of black children grew up in two-parent homes than white kids.4 In addition, the current crime problem in the black community was unheard of in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. They didn’t have to shut their windows and lock their doors like they did in white neighborhoods, and could stroll their streets after dark without fear. Poverty and high school dropout rates were on par, often less, than white communities as well.5 Crime, poverty, unemployment, and poor education in the black community, accepted as the norm today, is in fact not and never was. A direct correlation can be drawn between this monumental change and liberal government social welfare programs, starting in the 1960s, and decline of the black family.6 They were making it on their own when the government pulled the rug out from under them.

What went wrong? Who is responsible? How can we begin to fix this? Those are the questions that should be asked. Blacks didn’t do this to themselves. But these questions won’t be asked because white liberals stoking racial division today are ideologically the same ones responsible for what has been done to the black community in the first place through their social engineering. Compounding the problem are “black” groups misidentifying those who stabbed them in the back and, asking the wrong questions, choose the wrong solutions.

Today Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the New Black Panthers (NBP) are joined by white Crypto-Marxists promoting revolution in America. Since the 1960s, they’ve demonized America’s founding conservative institutions, religion and family, until they’ve become epithets for hatred and racism. They corrupted public education harnessing it as a transmission belt for ideological indoctrination of each generation. Next they set their sights on other conservative institutions, the Boy Scouts and U.S. Military and, through insidious feminization and homosexualization, they too fell. Finally, deploying a fictitious narrative cooked up in the rotting fetid swamps of their brains, they went after the last man standing, the police, claiming they’re the tip of the white man’s spear in a war to destroy the black race. It is them they blame for violence in black communities. Is any of this true? Have circumstances changed since Williams wrote about race twenty years ago?

Twenty-three percent of New York City’s population is black (only 33% is white) yet blacks account for 75 percent of the City’s shootings compared to 2 percent by whites. Its black population commit 70 percent of all robberies and blacks and Hispanics account for 98 percent of illegal gunfire in the city. Most of the victims are black and Hispanic. Redacted by the liberal media is the fact most legal gun purchases in the Five Burroughs are made by whites but only a miniscule percentage are used in crimes.7 Blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes in numbers disproportionate to their percentage of the population as a whole. But Liberal whites, who typically don’t live in or near minority neighborhoods, insist crime rates are the same, proportionate, for all races. They contend no race commits violent crime at a higher rate than any other, therefore, New York’s crime and arrest rates should mirror those percentages. If 23 percent of the city’s residents are black and 33 percent white, then 23 percent of crime should be committed by blacks and 33 percent by whites. But that’s not what’s happening. Black crime is way out of proportion to their percentage of the City’s population. What then accounts for the disparity? According to the white liberal media, it’s the result of racism.8 The Left would have you believe cops protect families in communities where they often live, arresting black suspects for assault, robbery, rape, and murder but look the other way when the same crimes are committed by whites. Yeah, right. I served and worked with police departments on the East and West Coasts and never met a police officer who wasn’t more than happy to put the habeas grabbus on the scrotes and dirt-bags of society irrespective of race.

Contrary to what white liberal pantywaists at the New York Times claim, police killings of blacks are actually extremely rare. They comprise a “minute fraction of black homicide deaths.” Approximately 25 percent of those shot and killed by the police are black meaning 75 percent are not.9 An arithmetic exercise is in order to put this into perspective. Yeah, I know, I went to public schools too.

Blacks comprise 13% of the U.S. population. They commit 57%+ of all murders, 45% of assaults, and 62% or robberies in America’s seventy-five largest counties.10 Of that 13%, approximately 47% are male.11 Approximately 49% of that 47% are between ages 18 to 34, the cohort committing the overwhelming majority of violent crimes.12 The 49% of the black population that is male represents 6.20% of the total U.S. population. The 47.7% of that 6.02%, ages 18-34, represents only 3.03% of the total U.S. population. When roughly 3% of a race commits 60% of the nation’s murders, and most of its rapes, robberies, and assaults, is it any wonder that cops profile, and people black and white, fear them? To be politically correct, should people equally fear Japanese, Indian-Americans, or Jewish Deli-owners? Wait a minute, professor, the Washington Post (marching orders for Bolshevik Millennials) claims “unarmed black men are seven times more likely than whites to die by police gunfire.”13 What do you say about that? If 60%+ of violent criminals are black, isn’t it far more likely the police will have encounters with them than whites? But let’s take a closer look at the paper serving the Kremlin on the Potomac.

Of the 987 people shot by police in 2015, 35 were unarmed black men, 2 unarmed black women, and 31 unarmed white men. Leftwing mouthpieces like the Post typically refer to unarmed suspects shot by the police as “victims.” What they dishonestly left out of this reporting is that of the 36 unarmed blacks, 5 tried to grab the officer’s gun and shoot him or her, several more had the officer down on the ground beating him or her senseless with the cop’s service equipment, (what would’ve happened once the officer went under), and 2 were killed by stray bullets fired from guns aimed at someone else. Black males are far more likely than white males to violently resist arrest, make a grab for the officer’s gun, and physically assault officers. In arresting suspects, no requirement exists for officers to first determine who is the better boxer, wrestler, or martial artist.14 Police officers are commissioned to enforce the law, keep the peace, and arrest those for whom probable cause exists to believe they’ve committed a crime. They’re not required to take a beating in performance of their duties.

Big surprise, the Pravda Post forgot to mention in cases they referenced that the suspects had gained control of non-firearm pieces of the officer’s equipment, including nightsticks, which are potentially lethal weapons especially when the officer is pinned to the ground, on his or her back. Detectives were beat bloody with their own portable radios while others under arrest, possibly on drugs, shrugged off night sticks, chemical sprays, and TASERS and were beating the cop senseless. Most people can only last a few minutes in an all-out struggle. But bad guys on drugs, like PCP,15 with the strength of Hercules, can go a lot longer. Officers often face suspects who are larger, stronger, and more physically fit. As a policeman, I took a class taught by a Captain from San Quentin, Marin County, California. Convicts behind bars practice escaping police holds, (feet apart and spread them, hands interlaced behind your head, and so forth), disarming cops, and killing them with their own service weapons. It was a chilling class. Once a cop is down, scumbags don’t need a gun to kill him or her. Kicks to the head, throat, ribs, and so forth will quickly incapacitate and kill a victim,16 one reason white-supremacist gnat-zies and ex-con thug-bikers wear steel-toed boots. If cops wait until they’re going under before grabbing the Smith & Wesson, it’s too late. Reality check; “Police officers are at a greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from police officers. The per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed is 45 times higher than the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops.” And “An officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.”17 But this is not what is explained in black communities or the liberal media.

Because some blacks target non-police random whites for “pay-back” assaults and the conflict between blacks and whites in general, talk of a “race-war” appears on social media. Regrettably, some blacks, including Economist Thomas Sowell and conservative former black Congressman Allen West believe the U.S. is already in the midst of a race-war. Random attacks on whites are justified as revenge for past injustices. Anyone with a white skin is fair game.18 Justification for race war are promoted by white liberal males tying to purge feelings of “white-guilt” guilt implanted into their skulls by public education, pop-culture, and university professors. To prove they’re not racists, they make common cause with BLM and NBP referring to the police as an “occupying force” and treat violent criminals as “victims.” Cop-killers are toasted as heroes within black communities and by white liberals19 who refuse to face the truth that crime in minority communities is black on black, not cop on black.20 St. Louis, Missouri, which makes Forbe’s Top Ten List of most dangerous cities in America like clockwork, is a black majority city in which 95% of homicide victims are black as are the killers.21 Kansas City, Missouri, called Kanshago in some circles (Kansas + Chicago) mecca for connoisseurs of abandoned boarded-up crumbling brick buildings, is 29% black and ranks as more dangerous than 94% of other communities in the state with an extremely high murder-rate, almost all black on black.22 Considering the municipal governments, school districts, and police departments of these cities are typically run by blacks, how can white millennial liberals continue to blame white cops? In addition, is it “white-guilt” that cripples their credulity or slavish adherence to ideology that causes them to stoop to or fall for race-hoaxes?

University of Missouri’s black president of the Missouri Student Association claimed “rednecks” in pickups screamed “nigger” at him warning that black students were going to be assaulted. He claimed the KKK had a presence on campus. Ultimately he, like black students at the University of Alabama and other colleges, confessed their stories of racial attacks were hoaxes. They made it all up.23 They painted the Swastikas and white supremacist symbols on buildings and dorm doors themselves. Further damage was done to the University of Missouri, negatively affecting enrollment and athlete recruitment, when black football players went on strike refusing to practice or play until graduate student Jonathan Butler ended his hunger strike.24 Butler, a self-described black “activist,” was protesting what happened in Ferguson, Missouri and demanding University President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin resign for doing nothing about alleged anti-black racism at the University. Regrettably, vertebral atrophy won the day and these administrators were forced to resign over faux racism and racial hoaxing as leftists learned to use race to flex political muscle.25 Perhaps worse, in a massive display of cowardice and gonadectimization, Board of Curators Chairman (a charitable sex-designation) Donald Cupps apologized to black students for the faux racial incidents, political race “stunting,” and hoaxing committed by black students that also destroyed the careers of lifelong educators and administrators.26 My contacts out in Missouri, advise enrollment at Missouri’s flagship university has plummeted, hundreds of professors have been laid off, and so many dorms closed, the university is renting them out like apartments and hotel rooms. And the most tragic consequences of these false narratives and lies?

From Baton Rouge to Dallas, 2015-2016 saw an “extreme spike” of 56% in ambushes on cops over 2014. This spike began following well-orchestrated and publicized protests and riots coupled with the Left’s calculated inflammatory rhetoric (aided and abetted by former president Obama).27 Another consequence is the “Ferguson Effect.” Afraid of being accused of and punished for racism, police officers scaled back aggressive proactive policing and anything that smacks of profiling. As a result, violent crime has spiked with cities like Baltimore experiencing a blood bath. Street cops know that, like the University of Missouri’s Board of Curators, the powers-that-be will shamelessly throw them under the bus in a heartbeat to placate the violent mob.28 Who suffers the most? Blacks living in the inner-city. Way to go Lefties.

Thomas Sowell

1 Teachers are forced into retirement for various reasons. My crime was engaging in Unprotected Education. I dared to teach the “other side” as opposed to liberal dictum being indoctrinated into the minds of students and was targeted by a coven-like cabal of leftist teachers for expurgation. They were relentless. What makes me so dangerous now that I’m out? Because I was on the INSIDE for 25 years, I know what really goes on, and I’m going to tell. Watch for future articles.

22 I don’t refer to Hamilton as “black.” His father is Caribbean, of African ancestry, and his mum is a blonde Englishwoman. Lewis was born and raised in England. Formula 1 drivers represent their nation, their team, and the sport, not a race. The world, not me, describes Lewis as black. Naturally blacks claim him as he may go down in history as the greatest F1 driver of all time. Although half-white, some whites see him as a “black guy who is part white.” Born with a natural tan, I was forced to “defend” my racial composition as a teacher. Colleagues mocked my suspected racial composition, yes, teachers, and students made up songs whose lyrics were full of speculative mockery. It seems, unless one is 100% white, even if 80%+, they’re not accepted as white but as representatives for their tiny non-white part. Yes, racism exists in America.

33 Walter E. Williams, More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well (Stanford, California, Hoover Institution Press, 1999), 20-21.

44 IBID. 23.

55 Walter E. Williams, “The Community and Crime,” at https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/01/17/the-black-community-and-crime-.

66 Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy Of American Compassion (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, 1992), 167-199.

77 Heather McDonald, The War Against Cops (New York, N.Y., Encounter Books, 2016), 27-28.

88 IBID. 34-37.

99 IBID. 37-38.

1010 IBID. 38. See also: Taleeb Starkes, Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter to the Race Grievance Industry (North Charleston, South Carolina, Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016), 23.

1313 McDonald, 74.

1414 IBID., 74-76. Citizens seem to think the local cop knows and represents every cop anywhere in America. If one does something wrong, all cops are guilty. I was asked often why cops used mace, nightsticks, and even guns on bad guys instead of using martial arts like William Shatner on the television show, T. J. Hooker. You know, Kung-Fu kick the bad guy’s gun from his hand. They said; Instead of shooting and killing bad guys shooting at you, why don’t you “wing” him instead? You can’t make up this kind of idiocy.

1515 PCP: Phencyclidine. Street name is “Angel-Dust.” Some people cook PCP in water and then, using a spray bottle, spray it on Marijuana cigarettes. They smoke it when dry. PCP, formerly a horse-tranquilizer, is a mind-altering drug than can cause extreme paranoia, violence, hallucinogenic episodes, psychosis, and gives the user incredible strength. How do I know? Whaddaya mean how do I know? I had to arrest these junkies and more than a few told me “how it was done.”

1616 McDonald, 74-76.

1717 IBID. 77-79.

1818 Starkes, 41-42.

1919 Starkes, 118-134.

2020 IBID. 43.

2121 IBID. 97.

2222 IBID. 98-101.

2323 IBID. 174-178.

2424 Todd Palmer, “Missouri football Coach Gary Pinkel to Resign Following 2015 Season,” at httpS://amp.kansascity.com/sports/college/see/university-of-missouri/article/44782572.html.

2525 Daniel Arkin, Alex Johnson, and Jon Schuppe, “University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe Resigns Amid Racial Unrest,” NBC News, at https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna459941.

2626 IBID.

2727 Ari Melber and Dianna Marinaccio, December 29, 2016, “Sharp Rise in Ambush Killings Leaves Police Officers, Families On Edge,” NBC News, at http://www.abcnews.com/amp/sharp-rise-ambush-killings-leaves-police-famalies-edge-A700891.html.

2828 McDonald, 62-71.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

When is a gun not a gun?

When it isn’t a gun.

When I saw this report…

How Academy Sports Could Be At Fault For Sutherland Springs Because Of A Firearm Accessory
A state district judge in San Antonio ruled Monday that relatives of the victims of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs can sue Academy Sports, the Katy-based sporting goods chain that sold the shooter the rifle he used in the 2017 attack.

… I expected BS. When I saw this…

Timothy Lytton, professor at Georgia State University College of Law, says this could have implications nationwide because the judge ruled that Academy broke a federal law.

… I knew I’d found it. I happen to be familiar with Lytton, from correspondence last year.* Lytton has expressed outrage that: “Designs include handguns and semi-automatic assault-style weapons. Federal background check laws applicable to the physical sale of firearms do not apply to the electronic posting of digital blueprints”.

Mainly because electronic files aren’t firearms. He could never quite grasp that point. And while he seems vaguely aware of NICS, he’s a little hazy on other laws: “Since the 1980s, anyone can purchase the most lethal of firearms
free from all legal restrictions.”

W. T. F?

But this comment he made in a column last year is very, very important to our current discussion.

“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales. No federal license is necessary to sell gun parts. And no background check is needed to purchase them.”

Gun parts. That’s… partially true. AR lowers, drop-in auto sears, and any receiver more than 80% complete require an FFL to sell commercially (and in the case of the DIAS, NFA applies). The ATF famously once classified a shoestring as an NFA-regulated machinegun.

But not magazines.

Which brings us to the Academy Sports “negligence” lawsuit. Academy Sports in Texas sold an AR with a 30-round magazine to the shooter-to-be, who presented himself (complete with ID) as a Colorado resident. The buyer passed a NICS check (thanks, negligent USAF). The magazine — unlawful in Colorado, which is why Magpul left the state — is the basis of the suit.

Texas judge lets Sutherland Springs church shooting victims sue gun retailer
The plaintiffs reportedly argue that the chain was liable for the shooting because employees at its retailer in San Antonio sold Kelley a high-capacity magazine that was illegal in his home state of Colorado.

The two sides reportedly sparred at a hearing Thursday over whether the federal definition of a firearm includes any magazine sold with it, and whether a Colorado law that bans the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Colorado residents who make the purchase in Texas.

There was no need for “sparring.” The judge should have tossed the suit with a sneer.

The applicable federal regarding interstate long gun sales is 18 U.S. Code § 922(b)(3):

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

“Any firearm,” not any “firearm part,” or “accessory.” The ATF regulates AR lowers by calling them firearms. Drop-in auto sears are “machineguns.” How does federal law define “firearm,” or “rifle” in this case?

26 U.S. Code § 5845(c) Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

No mention of magazine there. No “or any ammunition feeding device for same.”

Nor here:

18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3)
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

So federal law defines firearms and rifles, but doesn’t mention magazines as a part of either. In this case, we have to fall back on state law.

Does Colorado — the formal state of residence of the shooter — call magazines “firearms” in state law?

18-1-901 Definitions
(2)(h) “Firearm” means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

No magazine there. In fact, 18-1-901(2)(e) makes it clear that that a firearm is a firearm whether or not it is loaded:

(e) “Deadly weapon” means:

(I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded;  or

The magazine is extraneous to the firearm.

Let’s go a little deeper into Colorado law. Colorado does separately define large-capacity magazine.

18-12-301. Definitions
(2) (a) “Large-capacity magazine” means:
(I) A fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds of ammunition;
(II) A fixed, tubular shotgun magazine that holds more than twenty-eight inches of shotgun shells, including any extension device that is attached to the magazine and holds additional shotgun shells; or
(III) A nontubular, detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device that is capable of accepting more than eight shotgun shells when combined with a fixed magazine.
(b) “Large-capacity magazine” does not mean:
(I) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than fifteen rounds of ammunition;
(II) An attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(III) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

To Colorado, “large-capacity” magazines are a thing unto themselves, not firearms.

18 U.S. Code § 922(b)(3) restricts the interstate sales of firearms. It does not restrict the sale — interstate or intrastate — of accessories, whether scopes, slings, muzzle brakes, or magazines — which even Colorado doesn’t consider firearms. It simply doesn’t apply. Right, Prof. Lytton? (“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales.”)

While Colorado statute 18-12-302 generally bans possession of “large-capacity” magazines themselves, I have to question whether that law would apply outside of Colorado.

Out of state? Of an object that was never alleged to have been in Colorado?

“Gun parts – as opposed to whole guns – are not subject to any of the federal regulations that govern firearms sales.”

Now I wonder why Lytton didn’t tell Ms. Covington that, instead of suddenly deciding magazines are firearms, contrary to actual law.


* From there, Lytton devolved into incorrectly describing the outcome of a lawsuit revolving about “MAC-10s,” misstating my positions, and evading nearly every question I asked. I can make copies of our exchange publicly available should he wish to dispute my account.

 

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)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

For the utter stupidity of our enemy, let us thank G-d

I was going to include this in next week’s alert newsletter, but it’s so monumentally moronic, it needs to be addressed here, too.

Seeking to ban ‘undetectable’ guns, Rep. Madeleine Dean proposes law
The current law “does not adequately address today’s technologies or security risks,” said Dean, who represents Montgomery County. “Today, we face a more pressing issue — firearms made entirely of plastic, or with so much plastic that they fall below the current law’s detection standard.”

“…with so much plastic that they fall below the current law’s detection standard.”

@RepDean actually did it. She filed a bill to make it illegal to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)).

If the firearm doesn’t contain 3.7 ounces of steel, the maker has committed a felony. Ms. Dean’s bill would make it illegal to commit that felony.

If a plastic firearm doesn’t show up on airport x-ray, the maker has committed a felony. Ms. Dean’s bill would make it illegal to commit that felony.

To be sure of the latter, one could add barium sulfate to the plastic mix, but it really isn’t necessary. While this fact is apparently unknown to materials scientist Dean, doctors, nurses, veterinarians, parents, and anyone else who has had to deal with a child or pet who swallowed a plastic toy — heck, anyone who did a cursory web search of weird pictures — is well aware that…

Yes, plastic shows up in x-rays.

I don’t have the bill number, much less the text. I’ve asked Rep. Dean for that information. But I think it’s fair enough to take her at her own word.

Added: Here it is: H.R. 869: To modernize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. No summary or text yet. 14 co-sponsors, including Jackson Lee and Swalwell; actually, it’s a regular list of the dimmest of Dems.

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)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Interview with Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA

A couple of months ago, I received a form response (in reply to my email regarding reciprocal carry) from Senator Johnny “Crickets” Isakson, the new nickname earned through his silence when questioned about his actual RKBA positions. The Senator noted that he was a co-sponsor of that bill, which I already knew, but avoided saying what he might do to advance it.

But his form letter did tell me something else.

“I firmly believe that we do not need more gun control in America; rather, we need more criminal control. To that end, I support instant background checks on the purchase of all guns to prevent convicted felons from obtaining them, but I do not support waiting periods or the registration of any firearm.”
— Senator Johnny Isakson [R-GA], December 14, 2018, A rated by the NRA, A- by the GOA.

At that point, several Democrats had said that they would be filing bills to implement “universal background checks.” Since Isakson is on record supporting that, I decided a proper interview on the subject was in order. I sent his office a list of questions on January 3, 2019.

Receiving no response, not even an automated acknowledgement, I followed up on 1/9/2019. And again on 1/13/2019. Then on 1/15/2019. At long last, on 1/22/2019, I received a reply. I sent a request for clarification or expansion of his statement. No reply.

Let the interview begin.

1. How would you respond to those who say background checks, a requirement that a buyer preemptively prove his innocence, are a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right?

-crickets-

2. Research shows that approximately 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained through unlawful channels bypassing background checks (private sales between non-prohibited persons without background checks are not one of the unlawful channels). How will you shut down the unlawful transactions, thus forcing those people to turn to lawful channels and background checks?

-crickets-

3. At least 93% of NICS denials turn out to be false positives, and there is currently a backlog of tens of thousands of denial appeals. How will you fix the false positive problem, which can only increase the backlog as private sales are forced to turn to NICS?

-crickets-

4. There is an unknown, but large, false negative problem with NICS; prohibited persons listed in NICS still passing background checks. How will you fix that?

-crickets-

5. A 2017 study showed that “We cannot conclude that states that regulate private gun sales have a higher, or lower, gun homicide rate.” California, with universal background checks as part of the most comprehensive gun control laws in the country, saw an 18% increase in firearms homicides from 2014 to 2016. How would federally imposed universal background checks work better?

-crickets-

Other legislation has been entered or seems likely:

Graham has introduced an “Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO/”red flag”) bill would you support that? If so, why; and how would you respond to those who say that “preemptive” orders with after the fact “due process” are unconstitutional bills of attainder?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose a ban on bump-fire stocks, and why? Do you consider the recent rule change making bump-fire stocks “machineguns” to be lawful?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose national reciprocal carry, and why?

“In the 116thCongress, I have again cosponsored the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This commonsense legislation would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws.”

An answer! A form reply, but something.

Do you support or oppose removing suppressors/silencers from National Firearms Act regulation, and why?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose raising the minimum purchasing for rifles and shotguns from 18yo, why?

-crickets-

Do you support or oppose a ban on any class of firearms, such as “assault weapons,” and why?

-crickets-

Is there any other firearms-related legislation you would support or oppose?

-crickets-

About all I can establish about Senator Crickets’ positions is that he’ll eventually sign on to reciprocal carry but not carry through (or it might have at least come to a floor vote last session), and that he wants ineffective, expensive prior restraint of rights through preemptively-prove-your-innocence background checks whose only real purpose can be to assemble 4473’s to identify gun owners and their firearms.

Sadly, Georgia and the nation are stuck with him until the 2022 elections.

 

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)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Oregon Firearms Federation vs Oregon Ceasefire. Who is antisemitic?

A week or so ago one of our Zelman Partisans facebook readers sent me a copy of a letter from Oregon ceasefire, a victim disarmament group.

Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, today I shall address the situation.

Letter from Oregon Ceasefire

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had seen an alert from Oregon’s Firearms Federation about the mask being off, but I hadn’t been aware of other very serious things that were going on with this gun rights organization. But after I read the letter from Oregon Ceasefire, my eyes were opened! It seems Oregon Firearms Federation is antisemitic according to Oregon Ceasefire! I am shocked an appalled. Antisemitism is one the rise everywhere, from Jews in Francistan that can no longer wear a Kippah in public safely to the US where two muslim women have been elected to congress. One of whom supports BDS and has made antisemitic tweets about “Israel hypnotizing the world” and the other has covered up the one Jewish state on her map with the name of a country created in 1964, same year as the Beatles by the way. Indeed, this charge of a Second Amendment rights group being antisemitic needed investigation! So, I did.

I wrote both groups, and asked what incident lead to such a charge?

I wrote Oregon Firearms Federation first. Please note, I’m not a reporter, I’m a columnist and so I have no guilt over telling them to keep up the good work.

Email to Oregon Firearms Federation

 

 

 

 

Within a minute after I wrote Oregon Ceasefire.

Letter to Oregon Ceasefire

 

 

 

 

It’s a few days later now, I’ve heard back from Oregon Firearms Federation(OFF), I have not heard back from Oregon Ceasefire.

It seems according to Oregon Firearms Federation the charge was prompted by a page that OFF had on their web site.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/michael-z-cahana-memorial-page

Ah! Indeed the images are horrific. Horrible images of the Holocaust, please G-d may such a thing never happen again. A sane person would never want to see such images mar the pages of history. If you have a pipe freeze and break in your house due to a air leak that can reach a pipe (speaking from experience here) one would do their best to assure that such conditions will not re-occur by sealing the leak. They would not get a hammer and enlarge the hole. But then I’m me, and the hole got sealed. Oregon Ceasefire is not me. They choose to grab that hammer. It’s worth noting that when Oregon Firearms Federation emailed me back, they informed me that the page had been up for months, and apparently in an attempt to get their name back in the news, Oregon Ceasefire notified the media who promptly called the “experts” in their Rolodex that will recite what they want to hear. But please note that the Rabbi in question Michael Z Cahana has 180 degree different opinion on these matters than another Rabbi Kahane, who’s motto was “Every Jew a .22”. Rabbi Meir Kahane HY’’D הי״ד to be exact. So Rabbi Cahana in favor of defenseless victims, most certainly does not speak for us all.

But back to the matter at hand, one of the pieces of legislation, victim disarmament if you want to call it what it is, is SB0501 according to OFF.

80th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY–2019 Regular Session

Senate Bill 501

Sponsored by Senator WAGNER, Representative SALINAS (at the request of Students for Change) (Presession filed.)

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.

Requires person to secure permit before purchasing or otherwise receiving firearm. Specifies qualifications for permit and manner of applying for permit. Creates procedures for appealing denial of permit. Punishes receipt of firearm without valid permit by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonmen $6,250 fine, or both.

Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container.

Punishes failure to secure firearm by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.

Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to report to law enforcement agency loss or theft of firearm within 24 hours.

Punishes failure to report loss or theft by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both.

Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition.

Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.

Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period.

Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Department of State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm.

Alrighty, now let’s take a look at some actual nazi (no, they still don’t get capital letters) gun laws.

Straight from the Book “Gun Control” Gateway to Tyranny. Let’s have a look-see, shall we? See if anything looks familiar. Remembering that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on nazi weapons control laws of 1938, Sen. Chris Dodd’s -D daddy Sen. Thomas Dodd -D had a copy of the nazi weapons laws that he had translated. It was on those laws that he based his gun control act.

So, Page 52

Page 52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And page 57. Please note sections 12, 13 and 14

Please note the sections

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And last, page 81.

Page 81

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Aaron points out in the book, these gun control laws are immoral. Because they treat the law abiding citizen in this manner as a reaction to acts committed by criminals. Torah absolutely supports self-defense. Too many blather “Thou shalt not kill”. NO, and more no. It says “Thou shalt not MURDER”. Not the same thing.

So the virtue signaling Oregon Ceasefire chooses to ignore (or never learned) history. Let’s do a brief recap shall we?

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

Disarmament of the German Jews

Hitler and Gun Control

On October 4, 1938, Nazi police arrested one Alfred Flatow in Berlin. His crime: being a Jew in lawful possession of a firearm. Lawful because he had dutifully registered his guns in January 1932, complying with the pre-Hitler anti-firearm decrees of the Weimar Republic. The arresting police were probably unaware that Flatow won Gold and Silver medals for Germany in the 1896 Olympics. He had also served in the German army in the 1890s.

….

The Nazis also moved to control others who possessed weapons. Despite protests, the government banned all voluntary “shooting clubs” (Schuetzenvereine) in Germany. These clubs were popular forms of recreation across the nation, and many club leaders opposed the ban and even expressed objections to the Nazi government. As Hitler was rapidly centralizing and broadening his powers, he dissolved all local and independent shooting and sports clubs on May 10, 1933. Two weeks later, he created the Nazi-controlled German Shooting Sport Association (Deutscher Schiesssportverband), which became another mouthpiece for the Nazi government and, with war on the horizon, a source of males already trained in marksmanship.

So many of the laws advocated by Oregon Ceasefire have been implemented. What did that lead to?

I’ll let the witnesses tell you themselves.

First up, Eta Wrobel, a truly amazing woman. She wasn’t doing dishes either, or cleaning the camp. Eta was a modern day Devorah, leading battles.

Next we have Sonia Orbach.

What does Sonia have to say about this?

Why oh why does it have to get to the point you need two hand grenades? Why can’t tyrants just fear to attack citizens? Why would a woman even think like this?

Oh, that’s why.

These are far from the only two female partisans. There is a little film clip on some of them.

I understand that part of the reason Oregon Ceasefire reached out to Der Stürmer, the media was because they are losing relevance since Michael Bloomberg began shoveling money into Mad Mommies, his favorite astro-turf group. So, if all guns are evil and people will be safer if they are all banned he will no doubt be glad when that happy day comes right? Um, no. Seems Bloomberg is a elitist hypocrite.

Alumnus, major donor Michael Bloomberg wants private, armed police force patrolling Johns Hopkins University

“When you have a city that has the murder rate that Baltimore has, I think it’s ridiculous to think that they shouldn’t be armed,” Bloomberg said of the Hopkins security force.

….

A group of Hopkins students called Students Against Private Police expressed dissatisfaction with Bloomberg’s remarks. In a statement, the group said Bloomberg’s support for a private, armed police force is at odds with his other work to promote gun control

Just an FYI: The Bloomberg School of Public Health is located at John Hopkins. There moulders the academic wing of Bloomberg’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, anti-self defense, of course.

I’m actually shocked, I mean Baltimore has a Demoncrat Mayor a very strict gun control as it is. Why on earth is Bloomberg worried about high crime?

Michael Bloomberg, to quote Aaron Zelman, is a “Bagel brain”.

So, in conclusion. Is Oregon Firearms Federation antisemitic? No. They oppose laws that enabled the brutality of the Holocaust, and if you’ve forgotten just how brutal it was, or never learned, that page reminds you. A post on my Zehut list mentioned a poll conducted by Schoen Consulting found that 11% of all US adults and 22% of millennials haven’t ever heard of the Holocaust. Perhaps Oregon Ceasefire is one of them.

Is Oregon Ceasefire Antisemitic? I think so. If you can compare what they are advocating with what nazi Germany had for gun laws and the persist in doing so, I would say yes they are. I believe as you look at the rise of antisemitism world wide it’s imperative that Jews learn to shoot and be ready to do so.

To that end I reached out to one of my favorite groups, Cherev Gidon. In the wake of the Pittsburgh Synagogue attack they came on my radar. I asked a simple question, Why do you do what you do? Why are you teaching Jews and others to shoot and how to defend themselves?

Yonatan, director and founder was kind enough to answer me.

Cherev Gidon Israeli Tactical Training Academy exists for the purpose of training American Jews with Israeli combat shooting skills, so that every American Jewish community will be well armed and professionally trained with the ability to mount an effective defense against any violent attack on any Jewish community (as we saw in Pittsburgh). Our goal is to have each and every American Jew carrying a firearm with them to synagogue (and everywhere they go), so that never again will any Jew fall victim to antisemitic violence. Thankfully, our program has become incredibly popular recently, and we are actively achieving our goal of making those communities hard targets. We are currently expanding to different regions and communities across the US as a result of the unprecedented demand and we hope to be able to make our training programs easily accessible to all Jews, no matter what part of the country they live in.

And do you know what? This

beats this

Wedding rings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every day of the week and twice on Shabbat. When I wrote OFF back and thanked them for answering me, I made a comment.

Aaron

 

 

I like that.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Baker Act vs. ERPO

There’s a fad for “red flag” extreme risk protective orders that makes the pet rock craze look rational. Even the Vichy NRA backs this supposed tool to keep guns away from “dangerous” people.

Except when they claim they don’t. Oh no, says the VNRA, we only back ERPOs with “due process.” Except when they don’t.

Why the demand for ERPOs, with their intended lack of due process? If the goal is to prevent a potentially dangerous person from harming himself or others, one could implement a Florida-style Baker Act.

The Baker Act allows an adult to be involuntarily held for mental health evaluation for up to 72 hours (12 hours for a minor). The 72 hour limit conforms to the usual 72 hour maximum that criminal suspects may be held without charges.

Neither a 72 hour questioning period nor a 72 hour mental health evaluation result in a permanent or semi-permanent loss of Second Amendment human/civil rights. In either case, a loss or suspension of rights would come only after a due process hearing (indictment or involuntary committal), resulting from the outcome of the questioning or evaluation.

It is noteworthy that victim disarmament advocates, and the VNRA, do not see any need for due process before rights are violated. In fact, typical “red flag” laws do not require that the allegedly dangerous person be taken into custody at all (the VNRA suggests this as an option available to a judge in an ex parte proceeding). The target is merely one class of weapons, not the person allegedly in need of help.

One class of weapons: firearms. Not baseball bats, knives, nor even motor vehicles, which in 2016 were implicated in almost 2,000 more deaths than firearms, even though estimates of the number of motor vehicles is 138,360,614 less than the number of firearms in America. ERPOs take firearms useful for defense, but not statistically more deadly automobiles. Not even the driver’s license.

Does that sound like something meant to ensure safety?

Another difference between a Baker Act hold (or hold for questioning) and “red flag” laws is that a person held for evaluation or questioning is allowed representation and communication. The subject of a “red flag” order never has the chance for either, because the first he knws about the order is when the police show up to seize his property, or kill him. And where is the due process for someone whose firearms are taken, because someone else was subject to a “red flag” order?

Further, standard “red flag” law language imposes a long-term loss of 2A rights even if the person is never found to require treatment, nor accused of an actual crime. Typically, the accused may petition for restoral of rights after a set period. In contrast, a criminal suspect released from custody without charge retains all of the rights he enjoyed prior to questioning.

“Red flag” extreme risk protective orders protect no one. Not the accused, not anyone else whom he allegedly might harm.

ERPOs are designed from the ground up to violate the rights of gun owners without pesky things like hearings or trial. ERPOs are legislatively and judicially blessed SWATting, no guilt required.

So why does the VNRA support “red flag” ERPOs, with ex parte proceedings instead of a simple Baker Act-style law in which no one loses their constitutionally-protected rights until adjudication has occurred?

 

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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

[Update] Red Flag Orders: Weasel-wording from the VNRA

See below, for more hypocrisy.


No, for once, I’m not going to talk about bump-fire stocks (anyone who doesn’t understand that problem by now can’t, or won’t, comprehend it).

Let’s talk about ERPOs. And the Vichy NRA.

Call them extreme risk protective orders, red flag orders, gun violence protection orders, or what have you, they had been floated for years, but became particularly popular after the Parkland school shooting. Rather irrationally, since the local, state, and federal authorities had plenty of time and warnings to stop the murder before he escalated to the deaths of humans (per reports, he’d been killing animals for years). The point was to deflect attention from their own failures. If only we’d had ERPOs (in addition to unused protective orders, unused Baker Act, unused arrests/indictments/convictions for what he’d already done, maybe even ignored prohibited person status), we could have stopped him.

Of course, the VNRA was blamed, too. So the VNRA had to put up their own deflector shields. They jumped on the ERPO bandwagon. Yeah, red flag laws are a great idea!

And the knowledgeable gun community — for once — exploded.

ERPOs have a little constitutional and moral problem.

I’m going to generalize, because the specifics vary from state to state. Getting a regular protective order is relatively easy. The person who thinks they may be threatened goes to a judge and asks for an order keeping the accused away from them. The court sets a hearing date. Parties involved show up and speak their piece. The judge decides if the order is justified, and if so issues it. He may set special conditions: some monitored contact, maybe zero contact, no threats, if he sees a particular danger he may order the accused to turn in any firearms he possesses. And with the order in place, he cannot lawfully obtain another firearm.

Whoa. Wait. Full stop. I’ll bet newcomers to this thought newly empowering judges to take those guns was the point of ERPOs. Victim disarmament advocates — like the mainstream media — have certainly done their best to convey that impression. But, generally, judges already have that power.

Though adjudication, a hearing in which the accused has the chance to defend himself before hand.

ERPO laws don’t change that power. What they do change is:

  • The accused doesn’t get the chance to defend himself. He isn’t even told of any hearing before his firearms are taken.
  • The claim that the accused is dangerous doesn’t have to come from anyone who feels threatened. In fact, as some laws have been written, the accused and accuser need never have met. The accused might not even know of the accuser’s existence

The first a person has any idea that he’s been accused may be when the police show up to kill him. Some people call that SWATting. I do.

ERPOs have even been executed against people who aren’t accused of being “dangerous” (they took firearms from an innocent third party because the accused thought he might be able to steal guns from him; might, not “could”).

That is what ERPOs are. And that is what the VNRA endorsed. Initially.

When gun owners (and even the ACLU) noted due process problem with ex parte proceedings, and the whole “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” thing, the VNRA backed off. Oh, no! What we MEANT was that we back ERPOs with due process.

Specifically, the VNRA said:

Just in case they decide to retroactively edit reality, here’s a screencap showing their support for ex parte proceedings.
  • Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
  • A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.

Make up your minds, VNRA. Stop weasel-wording on the issue. Would the VNRA allow ex parte (the accused not given the opportunity to participate) hearings or not?

Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights. We will only support an ERPO process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time.

Due process is defined in 5 U.S. Code § 554 – Adjudications. It requires the subject to be informed of the hearing before it is held. That excludes any ex parte action.

And yet, the VNRA is still (as of January 8, 2019) allowing for ex parte hearings with no due process.

If the VNRA wants due process hearings for protection orders, then “red flag” ERPOs are exactly what they should oppose.

Smart people — which seems to exclude VNRA “leadership” — understand that. The framers of the Constitution certainly did.

Article 1, Section 9
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

What’s a Bill of Attainder?

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs)
[…]
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to due process, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the separation of powers.

No trial: Check.

Nullifies civil rights: First Amendment rights to speak in a hearing denied, Second Amendment rights to firearm denied. Check.

Takes property: Check.

Heck; 4A, 5A, 6A, and 9A gone. Check.

The VNRA officially supports unconstitutional Bills of Attainder which strip anonymously accused people of their rights and property with no due process.

The Vichy NRA officially supports Star Chamber-ordered SWATting with no due process.

Update: The VNRA is “opposing” a red flag law in North Dakota.

Not only do they fail to provide any sort of mental health treatment but they allow the state to deny law-abiding gun owners their due process of rights. If the state can deny due process to these law-abiding residents then what’s to stop them from denying any right to any group of people?”

Which is exactly why I am calling out the VNRA’s hypocrisy in supporting ex parte proceedings lacking in participation, before the deprivation of 2A human/civil rights, by the accused.

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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

A simple flowchart

Everyone has flowcharts, companies have them, to perform CPR there is a flowchart, to fix a car there is a flowchart, to diagnose illness or even make financial decisions, there’s a flowchart.

So I decided I needed to make us a little flowchart. It’s another one of those things where I see two things that fit together, well, in my mind.

First off we have this story about a 25 year old woman. She was alone at a bus stop minding her own business in essentially gun free, so crime free Chicago. Or, as some call is Chi-raq.

Residents are praising the 25 year-old woman, with a concealed carry license, who shot and killed a man who was trying to rob her at a bus stop.

Surveillance video shows the woman waiting alone at a bus stop at 103rd and Wallace around 5:45 a.m. Tuesday. Police say a 19-year-old man, in a light colored hoodie, pulled a gun on the woman in an attempt to rob her.

She pulled out her own gun and shot him in the neck.

How’s about that! So that made it all the more interesting when I saw this cartoon on facebook the other day. My buddy Chris puts up great stuff. Then I’ve been watching Miss Fisher Murder Mysteries. It’s set in 1920s Australia, before it was a gun free paradise. Back when women could defend themselves. This was the first one I watched called I believe “Cocaine Blues”. Costumes are beautiful, very elegant, the cars are amazing and the music is swell. The stories are great, when watching the first one it hit me! A flowchart. A simple flowchart to determine if you value women’s lives. To be fair, it can be anyone’s life, but all these stories involve women. Apples to apples don’t you know?

So without further ado, my first flowchart.

DO YOU BELIEVE WOMEN’S LIVES HAVE  VALUE?

 

Disarmament Man Strikes again

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for our “Absolutely”

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Thundering Silence

I have spent the past ten and a half months trying to confirm or deny one little report.

On February 16, 2018, the Sun-Sentinel reported on an investigation conducted by Florida DCF of the scumbag who would become the Parkland murdering a$$h0le. Basically, it was just another case of the “authorities” blowing off another chance to do something about him before anyone died.

But eleven paragraphs in, I noticed something.

Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.

As I’ve written before, “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a specific legal status in Florida. It is based on a finding by a judge in a formal hearing in which the subject has the opportunity to appear with legal counsel. In short, a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a prohibited person under the criteria of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(4). Chumbucket should not have been able to pass a background check to buy his rifle.

But it happens. Rather a lot.

To be fair, the reporters might’ve misunderstood what DCF told them. So I contacted the Sun-Sentinel to verify that part was correct. I never received a response.

Since then, in an effort to discover if that “vulnerable adult” claim was accurate, I’ve contacted Florida DCF, state legislators, Senator Grassley (when he held a hearing on the shooting), the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school public safety commission, and the world. I have received no answers either way. From anyone. Until today.

A couple of days ago, the Sun-Sentinel’s Randy Schultz wrote an op/ed. He took the position that even if their sheriff is a complete screw-up (which he is), we still need more gun control.

If chum was a prohibited person, then gun control didn’t work. Maybe we should fix what we have before piling on more. I wrote to Schultz to suggest he look into that “vulnerable adult” issue, because I’d had zero luck myself.

Schultz replied. I’ll give him that much. In fact we had quite the email exchange.

Based on published reports, the Florida Department of Children and Families investigated and determined that Cruz was not a danger to himself. It ended there.

No. The results of that investigation had no bearing on chum’s prohibited status. They investigated because he was already a prohibited person “vulnerable adult,” according to the Sun-Sentinel. Which I told Schultz.

If you mean prohibited from buying a firearm, the conditions are that a person must have been committed or adjudicated,

Yes, and if bucket-head really was a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” that’s exactly what he went through to achieve that status. That’s why I want to know if he is: that status is achieved through adjudication of mental incompetence under Florida law.

But neither applied to Cruz.

-blink-

I gave him the Sun-Sentinel story with the original claim, and Florida and federal law cites to show that yes, it did

Correct. But the state made no no finding that he was a threat to himself.

He’s back to claiming that the investigation wouldn’t have made him a prohibited person because it cleared him. I reiterated that the investigation wasn’t done to determine if DCF should petition a judge for “vulnerable adult” staus for the a$$h0le. They were in a position to investigate him because he already was, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

You’ll have to ask the editors. I’m a freelancer.

See above: Been there, done that. They aren’t talking.

“Freelance” this: Was Cruz a prohibited person, as reported by the Sun-Sentinel, or not?

Being a reporter in the area, it should be easy enough for Schultz to check. If he was, the court record should be available. Even if sealed, that the record exists should be public. Heck, he could just talk to the original reporters and ask them to check their notes to see if that was a direct quote from DCF.

Personally, I originally thought the story simply mischaracterized Cruz’s status; reporters make mistakes. Or maybe it was correct, and I’d noticed just another governmental failure. No big deal. Except for all the dead people. I’m used to bureaucratic cock-ups.

After months of deafening silence, I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more to it.

Was Cruz a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness,” or did DCF make a series of truly amazing errors (having an adult under supervision without a judge’s ruling, making a very specific claim of that status mistakenly)?

If Cruz was a vulnerable adult, why wasn’t he reported to NICS? If he wasn’t a vulnerable adult, why does DCF have a report of an evaluation conducted of him as an adult?

If some DCF employee simply misread something, and Cruz was not classified as a vulnerable adult, why doesn’t DCF simply make the correction?

If the murderous slime was not a prohibited person, then folks like me can’t say NICS failed. Gun controllers could use that to rationalize more laws to catch folks not otherwise caught. If he was prohibited, then laws failed, and gun controllers don’t want to admit the system is at fault.

Why the silence? If he wasn’t prohibited, then that supports their gun control agenda. They could say so.

That they won’t say at all suggests to me that he was prohibited, but they can’t risk lying about it and getting caught.

 

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)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail