Which raises an an interesting question

One which I’ve asked before.

How? In this case, how will sheriffs enforce the universal background check law, Balderas?

New Mexico AG says sheriffs must enforce gun control law
New Mexico’s attorney general says law enforcement agencies must enforce a new law expanding background checks to nearly all private gun sales and that they could be liable for damage claims if they don’t.

Short of a deputy witnessing a transfer as it happens, I don’t see how it’s enforceable on law enforcement.

Deputy: “Hey, citizen. I see you have a gun. Did you do a background check before you got it?”

Citizen: “Deputy, you know I’ve had this revolver for eight years.”

Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”

Or maybe it would go like so:

Deputy: “Is that a new gun? I don’t recognize it. You do your background check?

Citizen: “Screw that. I bought it from Joe Blow on March 7, 2019, before that dumbass law got signed.”

Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”

For that matter, what’s the probable cause to investigate in the first place? Merely that an officer doesn’t recall seeing a particular person with a specific firearm before?

Deputy: “Nice rifle. Just get it?”

Citizen: “Yep.”

Deputy: “Do a NICS check first?”

Citizen: “Yep.”

Deputy: “Can you prove it?”

Citizen: “Can you prove I didn’t? I went through all four pages of that BS law, and nothin’ says I gotta keep paperwork for ya.”

Deputy: “Who ran NICS for you? I can check the dealer’s records.”

Citizen: Damned if I remember. Nothin’ says I gotta have a perfect memory either.”

Or maybe Joe Citizen bought it from Dad, or his brother. And neither kept anything but a receipt… dated 3/8/2019. Or undated. Or nothing at all; it isn’t required.

Even if a deputy witnessed a private transfer, say… at a gun show, since that’s where victim disarmers think criminal buy their guns…

Deputy: “Hey, you didn’t do a NICS check!”

Citizen: “Don’t gotta. He’s my uncle; ‘immediate family member’ as specified in the constitutional abortion.”

Deputy: “Can you prove that?”

Citizen 2: “Can you prove I’m not? Ain’t like the law requires me to carry around a marriage certificate showing I’m married to his maw’s sister.”

Deputy: “We could subpoena that.”

Citizen 2: “Did I mention that it was a common-law marriage in New Hampshire?”

I suppose if the authorities had doubts, they could confirm the transaction with the seller… who has every reason to verify the buyer’s claim since the law makes both parties criminals if they didn’t conduct the check.

I don’t think Senators Martinez and Wirth thought this through.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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

Take Two Aspirin

It’s an Opioid epidemic. You hear it all over the news. I read articles about it in my Farm Bureau magazine, it seems to be the “deadly German Shepherd/Doberman/Pit Bull” stories of the day. I’m so old I can remember how different decades had their designated “deadly dog” breed. Which of course is utter bull. Of any breed.

But this Opioid epidemic is so bad, it even has it’s own Wiki entry (/snark). What do we learn?

The worry surrounding the potential of a worldwide pandemic has affected opioid accessibility in countries around the world. Approximately 25.5 million people per year, including 2.5 million children, die without pain relief worldwide, with many of these cases occurring in low and middle-income countries. The current disparity in accessibility to pain relief in various countries is significant; the U.S. produces or imports 30 times as much pain relief medication as it needs while low-income countries such as Nigeria receive less than 0.2% of what they need, and 90% of all the morphine in the world is used by the world’s richest 10%.America’s opioid epidemic has resulted in an “opiophobia” that is stirring conversations among some Western legislators and philanthropists about adopting a “war on drugs rhetoric” to oppose the idea of increasing opioid accessibility in other countries, in fear of starting similar opioid epidemics abroad

Well, clearly something must be done. The government must step in. I know, more snark.

Which has led to many states passing “Prescription Drug Monitoring Program” PDMP. The government given reason is to catch people doctor shopping. The government, in addition to your doctor, feels they need to be aware of every prescription you are given. It will no doubt stop this current epidemic.

In 2016, the medical news site STAT reported that while Mexican cartels are the main source of heroin smuggled into the U.S., Chinese suppliers provide both raw fentanyl and the machinery necessary for its production. In British Columbia, police discovered a lab making 100,000 fentanyl pills each month, which they were shipping to Calgary, Alberta. 90 people in Calgary overdosed on the drug in 2015. In Southern California, a home-operated drug lab with six pill presses was uncovered by federal agents; each machine was capable of producing thousands of pills an hour.

Or not.

So what is the real reason for this intrusive action? Well, I could let Missouri’s Rep. Lynn Morris tell you about it, he’s all in favor of it.

Seems to me like this will mostly prevent people from going to their doctor and getting help when they need it. Depressed? Don’t go to the doctor, or don’t tell them. Want to quit smoking using Wellbutrin like your neighbor did? Not any more. Why not? Because those too, are medications that obama listed as being medications that should deny someone the right to own a gun. The data in the PDMP will of course be shared with other states. And of course it’s going to wind up in the federal government’s hands. I don’t care what they tell you. For example, Missouri has a law that the data obtained to get a driver’s license, for example you had to supply a copy of your birth certificate, was not suppose to leave the state. When Jay Nixon-Demoncrat was governor he betrayed the people of Missouri and turned over the data to MorphoTrust. Most assuredly not in Missouri. And then he lied publicly many times about doing it. They’re politicians, they lie. I’ve met a few honest ones, but so far Moshe Feiglin of Zehut, while on track to enter the Knesset in the next round of elections has still so far refused to come to America and enter the political arena.

But if the medical field is to be the arbiter of what is good, acceptable, legal, and kept private I would wonder how they handle other situations where they have that much power over people’s lives. I mean denying someone their G-d given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights is a pretty big thing. So, how do they acquit themselves?

The VA is restricting veterans’ gun rights without due process

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has placed gun restrictions on thousands of veterans without due process, and Congress needs to address the matter. It is quite ironic that under VA policy, the men and women who protected our nation in the armed forces are effectively becoming disarmed by unaccountable government employees.

Maybe they do better with children?

The Brutal Battle Against Medical Kidnappers

Justina’s plight had become international news in Marty’s backyard. One fateful winter day in February 2013, Justina traveled with her mom to BCH from her West Hartford, Conn., home, seeking relief from a severe case of the flu. Ordinary sickness compounded Justina’s rare medical conditions, including mitochondrial disease and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. But those illnesses hadn’t stopped her from participating in school, competitive ice skating, and an active family life.

Instead of receiving top-notch care and attention at BCH, however, Justina was snatched from her parents and recklessly rediagnosed with a psychological condition, “somatoform disorder.” She was dragged from BCH’s neurology department to its infamous psych ward, where she was reprimanded for being unable to move her bowels or walk unassisted in her weakened state. At Wayside, she was harassed by a staffer while taking a shower. The physical and mental torture lasted 16 months.

The family is now suing the gold-medallion-adorned, scandal-plagued Boston Children’s Hospital.

Justina Pelletier and Medical Kidnapping 4 Years Later – Has Anything Changed?

It has been more than 4 years since the most infamous case of medical kidnapping in the United States occurred when the state of Massachusetts, together with Boston Children’s Hospital, seized custody of then 14-year-old Justina Pelletier over a medical disagreement.

The story exploded across mainstream and international media after her father Lou Pelletier courageously defied an unconstitutional gag order and risked prison to tell his family’s story. With heavy hitters in the national media like Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee and Dr. Phil giving them exposure, as well as an army of advocates by their side, it still took 16 months to get their daughter home.

Justina, to this day, still suffers physical, mental, and emotional trauma from all that happened to her during her captivity.

And from the above story, here’s a little tidbit I had no idea, so in case you didn’t know either:

When Justina Pelletier’s story came to light, the world learned the horrifying reality that children who are wards of the state, including foster children, may legally be used in the United States as medical lab rats or guinea pigs in drug trials and medical research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

We learned that Boston Children’s Hospital and other hospitals around the country engage in this type of practice that would ordinarily be thought of as something only the Nazis during WWII would have done.

A 2014 article by Matt Barber at WND exposed the written policy of Boston Children’s Hospital that:

“Children who are Wards of the State may be included in research that presents greater than minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit.”

Well, but that was a few years back, so perhaps the medical field has reined in their abuse of power after things like this came to light, right?

Not so much. At all.

Detroit SWAT team assaults African American mom who refused to medicate her daughter with antipsychotic drugs

Child Protective Services (CPS) personnel attempted to kidnap Maryanne’s 13-year-old daughter. They accused her of not giving her child psychiatric medication prescribed by her doctor.

Maryanne says the medication caused side effects in her daughter and made her condition worse, which is why she refused to give her daughter the medication.

The medication was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication known for causing serious side effects such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aggression, anxiety, dizziness and lack of coordination

Child “Protective” services called the police to take the child away, a SWAT team got involved, it was just ugly.

Armed SWAT team violently storms family’s home, kidnaps three children for not being vaccinated

In this one, a Mother took her flu-stricken 2 year old to a “doctor” who decided since the child wasn’t vaccinated it must have meningitis and told the Mom to take it to the ER. Child’s fever broke shortly after that and was soon playing with it’s siblings. Mom called the “doctor” said child was ok and they didn’t need to go to the ER. Doctor told them to go anyway. Mom disobeyed the “doctor” and didn’t. This resulted in a 0100 door busting entry by the local SWAT team to remove all 3 children.

And now you understand the term M. Deity complex.

But hey the judge that signed off on this offered some great words of encouragement.

Despite arguments from the family’s lawyer that they did what they believed to be the best thing for the child who had the fever, the judge ultimately sided with the state and DCS, telling the parents that they needed to “remember” that the state had a “family-reunification plan” in place, whatever that means.

And this is the same government that is going to monitor the medications you or your family members do or don’t take. It matters not to me if you take vaccines or not, I realize there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate although I notice the people that choose vaccines seem to be much more hostile about it. Calling those that don’t want them “anti-vaxxers” while those that don’t want the vaccine don’t seem to care what anyone else does, they just don’t want it themselves.

But for those that choose to put every vaccine available in themselves and their children and insist everyone else do the same at the point of a governmental gun or have their children seized. Have you considered what happens when the government, chooses to do something you disagree with? You want to home school? Too bad. You want to send your child a home made lunch rather than buy the obama lunch? Too bad. Will child protective services take you child? When you demand government make laws affecting other people’s children, someone else is demanding laws that will affect yours.

But with the medical field showing itself to be rabidly anti-gun does anyone think the PDMP will not be abused to compromise the Second Amendment? What form will that abuse take and how far will it go?

What an unholy alliance! The BATFE, the AMA and adding in a PDMP. Yesh. The cherry on top? The “red flag” ERPOs, that alphabet soup should be enough to give anyone indigestion. But whatever you do, don’t call your doctor!

Actually there may be a cure.

Missouri is called the “Show Me” state, and they may be showing us the way to handle some of this. They currently have legislation being heard called the Second Amendment Preservation Act. They’ve been trying for a few years to get it passed. The VNRA (Bear, I poached your term) lied about it one go round and killed it. But they are trying again and it’s a fabulous piece of legislation.

It’s based on the “Anti-Commandeering” clause. Here is a good synopsis. Anti-Commandeering: An overview of five major Supreme Court cases from The Tenth Amendment Center.

And here is a good video to explain it. It won’t help with the states that are foolishly enacting ERPOs and PDMPs but it may help with some other things. Like for example, government agencies that make gun rules on a whim.

I recently renewed my CPR certification, it’s required for my job. In it, in every scenario it was stressed over and over again that one of the main factors determining survival rates was the speed with which CPR was started and the effectiveness of the CPR.

So, anti-gun medical people*, explain to me a faster and more effective self-defense tool than a gun? Oh yes, prevention is important. But just as vaccines do not prove effective every time, home defense prevention doesn’t always work. Will you wait for the ambulance to come rather than starting CPR (because after all, that should be left to the professionals) even though that wait may prove fatal? Well, why do you expect me to wait for the Deputies to come when I could have had something more effective and faster? Hypocrisy much?

*I most certainly realize not all medical people are anti-gun. Not all doctors ask patients and parents “Do you own a gun” and make it part of the patients medical records. But many do, and it’s part of the patients records, records no longer kept just at the doctors office due to obamacare. If you think these Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs won’t be abused? You possibly have a fever and are delusional, or have meningitis. Take two aspirin and skip calling the doctor in the morning. Just have some nice coffee.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

BSTD Bump-Fire Ban Compliance Rate [POLL]

The deadline for compliance with the irrational “bump-stock-type device (BSTD)” — bump-fire — ban has passed. So how effective has the imperial fiat been at making the nation safe from inert “machineguns”?

Who the hell knows? No one even knows how many there were; the ATF’s “estimate” (“SA Smedley! Quick; bend over so I can pull a number out.”) was 280,000 to 520,000 BSTDs sold. I’d like to see them give a 95% confidence level for WAG.

But I was interested, so I’ve been collecting turn-in reports. Such as they are. The majority of reports of turn-ins and destruction were merely unsubstantiated, vague claims that “people” are “complying,” without so much as a single example. I don’t count those.

The biggie, of course, was RW Arms who turned in for destruction 60,000 items they still had in stock. I’m not counting those because they hadn’t been sold; they weren’t part of the 280-520K giggle-guess.

After that come the great state of Washington, with a reported 1,000 turned in during their “buy-back”.” The problem with that number is hiding in the details. People were supposed to be paid $150 for each bump-fire stock. But the most detailed report stated that they only paid for 122 of 150 stocks surrendered. I suspect they were paying for commercial products, and some maliciously compliant smartasses (bless ’em) slapped together some bump-fire stocks from hunks of wood or PVC pipe.

So my wild ass guess is that only 81% of the WA turn-ins would count against the ATF “sold” estimate: 810.

Florida, which also banned bump-fire ahead of the federal rule, saw a whopping “handful,”, which I’ll call 5 (for the digits of a hand). Moving right along…

Illinois saw “a few” but a more detailed report clarified that “few” meant “1”.

Massachusetts, again with an earlier state ban: “only a few”. Since “few” doesn’t appear to be defined in statutory law, let’s say that between “handful” and “dozen.” Call it 8.

In North Carolina, the ATF claims “some” were turned over, but declined to give numbers. How many is “some”? I’m feeling generous. It was “steadily […] over the last few weeks.” Steadily = 1 per week. Few = 8. So call it 8 more BSTDs.

Vermont has some hard numbers. They got… 2.

The only other reported numbers were Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the City of Denver: Zero, 0, zip, nada, each. Zero is a number.

So, nationwide, I can only document 834 bump-fire stocks turned in. For some values of “document.”

But one can comply with the Royal Whim by destroying your valuable property. That’s going to be a little tougher to nail down.

I had no news reports specifically describing any destructions, just the aforemention vague “people are doing but we don’t know.” So next I turned to YouTube.

Frankly, a couple of searches there surprised me. I honestly thought I’d find more. As with news reports, it was mostly, “I’m going to,” or “I did, but I’m not showing it.”

The only videos I located which showed the destruction or the finished “product” numbered just…

11.

Of those eleven, we have 1 which went out in a blaze of glory in a Viking funeral (the dildos were a nice touch), 1 destroyed in the shop, 1 more chopped, 3 barbecued to death, 3 lost in a horrible dumpster fire, 1 homemade pistol bump-fire device rendered inert, and 1 lost in a tragic boating accident just before it was turned in.

Scratch the homemade unit (only counting those the ATF estimates “sold,” you know), and we have 10. We’re now up to 845 mass murder tactical death machines safely off the street.

845. Across the nation.

I searched a few firearms forums as well. Not a single turn-in or destruction mentioned. It was mostly, “They’re stupid; I never had one,” “I had one, but it wasn’t as good as I thought, and I got rid of it years ago,” or “They look like fun, but I never bought one.” I rather expected a “few” from my cold, dead hands declarations, but didn’t spot any.

845.

Taking the ATF’s low estimate of 280,000 BSTDs sold, they have achieved a miraculous 0.30% compliance rate.

Using the highball guess: 0.16%.

Trump must be so proud.

Zelman Partisan regulars are fine, upstanding people who obviously do their best to comply with constitutional laws. No doubt any of us who happened to own one of these evil machineguns has done the right thing. So quick poll of those who had them.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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

Marketing Failure?

While sorting through the news Tuesday morning, two seemingly unrelated stories ended up in adjacent tabs.

First…

Sandy Hook lawsuit against AR-15 maker could actually reach the Supreme Court
But the state supreme court ruled plaintiffs’ suit can proceed under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Bushmaster’s advertising essentially encouraged customers and others to use their XM15 rifles — the type used by Lanza — for criminal purposes.

Leaving aside how Bushmaster is responsible for the use of a firearm it sold to a dealer who sold it to a woman who had it taken by someone else after she was murdered…

Alleged: Advertising the rifle as suitable for mass murder.

Which brings me to the second article…

Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates
[Lead study author Michael Spiegel] observed, “Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a large impact on homicide rates, because these weapons are used in only a very small proportion of homicides. The vast majority of firearm homicides in the United States are committed with handguns.”

Hardly news. The government discovered the same thing after the federal “Assault Weapon Ban” of ’94. And that very thing had been predicted by numerous people when the bill was being debated.

But the juxtaposition of the stories struck me.

Pantytwisters: Eek! Bushmaster is advertising mass murder tactical death machines and encouraging us to go out and kill everything!

Everyone else: Didn’t work.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

 

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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

More Ninth Circuit Trouble: California Magazine Limit Tossed

Last year, van Nieuwenhuyzen v. Sniff set up the Ninth Circus for the dilemma of upholding a gun control law or shooting down sanctuary cities.

Now federal Southern District of California Judge Roger T. Benitez has made a ruling in Duncan et al vs. Becerra that, once appealed by the state of California, likewise presents the Ninth with a little problem. Benitez has found California’s 10-round magazine limit to be unconstitutional.

Ah, but the way he wrote it. You have to like a ruling that begins

“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts.”

And then the introduction: He cites three self-defense cases in which women needed more rounds.

The Ninth is likely to reverse Benitez, based on past history. And then we get to note that it means they want women dead.

Beyond the introduction, the ruling is rather dry reading, but worth the effort for Benitez’ analysis. He notes the irony of California’s law.

Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the 19 Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state. The anti-federalists were worried about the risk of oppression by a standing army. The colonies had witnessed the standing army of England marching through Lexington to Concord, Massachusetts, on a mission to seize the arms and gunpowder of the militia and the Minutemen—an attack that ignited the Revolutionary war. With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.

Exactly.

He spends a great deal of time explaining why the law is inconsistent with Heller, and why this law fails, not just strict scrutiny, but even intermediate.

In light of the ongoing bump-fire ban cases, I found a few other points interesting.

Plaintiffs who have kept their own larger capacity magazines since 1999, and now face criminal sanctions for continuing to possess them, no doubt feel they have been misled or tricked by their lawmakers.
[…]
In an analogous First Amendment case, the Supreme Court called this approach turning the Constitution upside down.

Sound familiar? Those once-lawfully owned stocks suddenly making people into criminals. I don’t know offhand if Guedes or the other bumpfire cases cite Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 474–75 (2007) or Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), but they should.

Benitez addresses “legislative deference,” too. In this context, that is the deference a court would owe the lawmakers who presumably carefully study matters before crafting law (giggle if you wish; that’s the theory). He tosses that in Duncan, because this law was passed by public referendum. No deference owed.

In Guedes et al an issue is what deference courts owe unelected bureaucrats who change legislative intent. None, I think.

After dozens of pages explaining why unsourced, anecdotal “expert” witnesses, mischaracterized laws, misstated rulings, arbitrary thresholds, and nonsensical exceptions are bovine excrement, Benitez concludes

This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.

Freedom over security. I am astonished to see that from a judge in California. The Ninth will soil their black dresses.

I expect all the Californian police-staters are going to have trouble wrapping their minds around that. To be perfectly clear:

1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.

2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.

Paragraph 2 is a thing of beauty. Not only is the judge tossing the law, he has made AG Becerra personally responsible for making sure every LEO is the state knows it’s the law. If this were to stand — and that alone will make the Ninth want to reverse — then anyone busted in the future for a 15-round mag by some local yokel cop, who says he didn’t know, has grounds to sue Becerra, even if charges are eventually dropped.

This is obviously a good thing, but don’t get too comfortable. This is a ruling by a District court. In the Ninth Circuit. All things considered, I expect the Circuit to reverse and remand.

Depending on plaintiff’s resources, this will most likely need to go to the Supreme Court. Given the varied magazine limits in assorted jurisdictions, SCOTUS should grant cert. Will they? The post McDonald record isn’t encouraging, especially last week’s decision to deny a stay in the bump-fire ban.

Stay tuned.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

DC Court of Appeals Denies… REALITY

In keeping with April First traditions of foolery, the DC Court of Appeals denied the Guedes et al appeal for a stay on the bump-fire ban.

It is 86 pages of legalese, which you may read at your leisure. Much of it addresses the legal aspects of Whitaker’s signing the rule, and administrative issues raised. The meat that I believe most TZP readers want to see boils down to this statement.

But the Rule reasonably distinguishes binary-trigger guns on the ground that they require a second act of volition with the trigger finger. The release of a trigger is a volitional motion. But merely holding the trigger finger stationary—which is what operation of a bump stock entails—is not.

Volitionally operating your finger counts. Volitionally operating your entire off hand and arm does not. Thus, inert hunks of plastic are machineguns. As is any light-trigger firearm which might be fired with an involuntary and nonvolitional muscle twitch, or sympathetic squeeze. Essentially, any unintended — nonvolitional –discharge proves your firearm to be a machinegun.

Equally infuriating, and more dangerous, is the way they dismissed all arguments against the ATF simply redefining words and changing intent. That’s peachy. Law no longer means anything whatsoever except what an unelected bureaucrat says it does, and is subject to arbitrary change. Your broken down Trabant can be a main battle tank. Better start your NFA paperwork.

There is no law.

There is no constitution.

You’ll also love the part where the lunatics in black dresses (which I hope come standard with built-in straitjackets) find that retroactively declaring bump-fire stocks to be machineguns is not a retroactive action. The Queen would be envious of their reality-denial skills.

The one glimmer of sanity is found in the dissent by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.

“Unlike my colleagues, I believe the Bump Stock Rule does contradict the statutory definition and, respectfully, part company with them on this issue.”

And for good reasons. Sane and logical reasons. This is the first time I’ve seen a judge diagram a sentence in a ruling.

For the reasons detailed supra, I believe the Bump Stock Rule expands the statutory definition of “machinegun” and is therefore ultra vires. In my view, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and I would grant them preliminary injunctive relief.

Sadly, every other judge who has ruled on a bump-fire stock case to date believes otherwise. Even the majority (possibly unanimous, as no dissent was listed) of the Supreme Court saw no need to stay the ban. I am not optimistic as to the final outcome.

Of the case(s), or the country.

I fear the oathbreaking majority idiots have moved us another day closer to Open Season.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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

Fisking Truscott

Lucian K. Truscott (the IVth, no less) is an effing moron. This was in Salon, so I’m not going to link to it and give them traffic. If you want to see it, search the headline:

Youuuuu might be a gun nut if . . .
Woe be unto the innocent bystander, or even the less-than-innocent liberal wuss Salon columnist, if you raise your hand and say something . . . anything . . . about guns and gun ownership. Boy, are the gun nuts ever ready for you!

Especially if your column is chock full of false statements.

    • “The first thing they accuse you of is wanting to ban guns, all guns.”
      No. We save that for the multitude who do call for bans. Like Duke Nukem Swalwell or Alison Airies or Dianne Feinstein or all of these.Or… Lucian K. Truscott IV:

      • “New Zealand came to its senses and banned them. When will we?”
      • “Ban the sale of gas operated weapons.”

       

    • “I mean, look at the reaction of the NRA to something as sane as the recent ban on bump stocks”
      Reaction to the ban? The VNRA came up with the idea. Their “reaction” was to their members’ reaction to the ATF actually doing what the VNRA called for.
    • “it’s an utterly defensible ban on a device that converts a legal gun into an illegal weapon of mass destruction.”
      WTF? Even the lunatics at the ATF never claimed that. Do you know what a weapon of mass destruction is?
    • “If you listen to the NRA, you would think that banning bump-stocks is the first step on a slippery slope to disarming America.”
      Or if you listen to Pelosi, who hopes it is. Or the Parkland Pussies.
    • “I was raised to understand that guns are designed and manufactured to kill. I was trained in the Army on multiple guns, and I was trained to use them to kill.”
      Oh yes; let’s talk about Truscott’s military experience:

      Truscott attended the United States Military Academy, graduating in 1969. […] He was threatened with being sent to Vietnam, so he resigned his commission about thirteen months after graduating, receiving a “general discharge under other than honorable conditions.”

      Lots of relevant military experience there, huh? Here is more detail if you want it. Charge: “Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.”

  • “The shooter in Las Vegas had bump stocks on nearly all of the 24 guns that were found in his room”
    14 of 24 firearms were equipped with bump-fire stocks. However, no state or federal report on the incident has said bump-fire was used.
  • “Then they go after you for mis-using, or mis-interpreting gun language.”
    Yes. Because terminology matters. If you get it wrong, you confuse semi-auto AR-15s with military assault rifles, or cars for main battle tanks. Or, like McCarthy, you file a bill to ban the wrong item because you didn’t know the correct word.
  • “Define an “assault weapon!” AR-15 style rifles aren’t “assault weapons” because they don’t have “select fire.””
    No, dumbass. “Assault weapon” is a political term used to confuse the ignorant. An assault rifle is the select-fire weapon. Assault rifles are used by virtually every army in the world. No nation generally issues semi-autos to its regular troops.
  • “It is, of course, sold on the open market to any civilian who walks in with the scratch to buy one.”
    Not quite. It’s sold to anyone with the cash, who passes a background check. And the particular pistol pictured has a suppressor, which is an NFA item requiring a tax, and federal permission to possess, which is another background check.
  • “a .177 bolt action rifle my brother gave me.”
    Got me there. Could you be more specific? I don’t know of any firearm chambered in .177. Is that actually an air rifle? Or, perhaps, it’s .17 HMR.
  • “I was raised to understand that guns are designed and manufactured to kill.”
    You were raised wrongly. Firearms are designed to propel a projectile at a target. Intent is in the mind of the user. A soldier is trained to kill the enemy. A kid plinking at cans has the intent of knocking them over, not killing.
  • “Guns like the assault rifles used by the Las Vegas shooter”
    According the the final investigative report, he used semi-auto rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. None were assault rifles.
  • “or the shooter in Parkland”
    No assault rifles there either. Semi-auto with 10-round magazines.
  • “Sandy Hook”
    Nope.
  • “Pittsburgh”
    Wrong again. Semi-auto rifle and three semi-auto pistols.
  • “New Zealand”
    No. Semi-auto rifles and shotguns. You aren’t very good at this.

I’m a bit puzzled by this statement. Perhaps someone familiar with Vietnam-era Army policies can explain it.

“The last one [semi-auto] I shot was an M-14 in the Army in 1965.”

That would seem to have been his first year at West Point. I would have thought that there’d be a little more rifle training during the four years, and certainly I’d have expected him to qualify once on active duty. Did they not trust him with firearms?

Hey, let’s look at another Truscott column:

Assault rifles are insane: New Zealand came to its senses and banned them. When will we?

Oh, I can hear them now. The NRA and its ilk will tell you that this military-style assault rifle is just the thing to use hunting deer, or elk, or some other poor creature. But it’s really a killing machine, a thing you can buy that is designed for one purpose: to kill a “soft target” from up to a mile away. That is insane.

He’s ranting about the Victrix Armaments Scorpio, which he thinks is “a rifle very similar to “ the “POF USA P-308 AR 10.”

The Scorpio is a bolt-action rifle. Just like his grandmother’s heirloom .22. Standard 5-round capacity; probably less than his .22, or his revolvers.

Oh, well. His market has always been anti-rights lefties, so I guess he’ll continue to play well there. Not so much in the real world where people take time educate themselves. I expect you could slip a drive belt around his grandfather’s rotating body and power a small city.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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

NZ: Why wait for a piddling thing like the law?

Per NZHS forum members, New Zealand police are jumping the gun.

Caution: I have found no news reports confirming this, but the claims strike me as credible.

It is important to note that, as best I can tell, at this time, the only “ban” is on sales. Possession is not yet banned, although it is planned.

Got suggested I pop this up but whilst at work this morning, I hear a voice ask for me by name. I turn around and there’s 2 police officers.

Needless to say workmates were shocked too see me taken into a room for a chat and these guys were quite nice about it but wanted to know what my partner and I have.

Was polite and freely told them plus we were waiting on further buyback details and advice at this time. Also let them know due to having been days away from both of us submitting our E cat application our E cat safe is installed and floor plated as per the reccommendatons. (So stored legally in an odd stroke of luck)

It seems to depend on the officers, but they are reportedly not stopping with gathering data.

A Mate of mine had the cops turn up at his house on sat after an image a friend of his had posted on Instagram holding his a cat ar15 got reported. They asked to see his safe and he complied. They confiscated his ar15 as well as his semi 22 although they Admitted they werent sure if that would be effected under the new law and suggested he may get it back. They gave him a police property form with all details of what they were holding and took the guns with them

And if they can’t reach owners, they attempt to get other people to rat them out.

This is second hand from someone who attended their 2 day shoot over the weekend. Wairarapa gun club had a talk on the weekend about firearm security whilst on club grounds. Locked vehicle etc. It was also mentioned that there evidently have been instances of police turning up at clubs wishing to inspect firearms and licences. NZCTA evidntly recommend politely refusing as under current legislation without a warrent this is illegal. Questions have also evidently been asked “do you know what guns other members have” it was pointed out that it is liiegal at present to divulge what firearms another person holds.

The fact that the police are attempting to discover what people have is interesting.Depending on the news report, the coming ban is anything from “military-style semi-automatics” (an NZ legal term roughly equating to a California “assault weapon”) to all semi-automatic firearms.

MSSA’s must be licensed and registered (roughly equivalent to the American NFA). But the police don’t seem to know who has them. It sounds like their registration system is working about as well as California’s.

Unofficial reports have it that NZ is running short of PVC pipe. And gun stores are running out of A Cat semi-autos. The police are going to need metal detectors and ground penetrating radar to document those.

Sadly, this hasn’t stopped with unlawful searches and seizures. There are news reports of a fatality. The police say it was suicide. But they also say:

“Members of the public who heard what they thought were explosions were hearing police deploying gas at the scene.

What brought this on? The official version is that the man’s son posted a years-old picture of an Airsoft gun on social media. That necessitated a raid on his home.

After a stand-off with the man in his truck, he was found dead of a stab wound or wounds.

So far, NZ gun owners say they intend to be polite when dealing with police. But the sense I get is that may change with more unlawful seizures, or another convenient suicide.

(Hat tip to The Truth About Guns)

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

 

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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

The Rule of Whim

I warned you. More than three years ago, I warned you.

Today, Chief Justice Roberts denied a motion to stay the bump-fire ban rule pending a final ruling by the courts. If you possess a bump stock, you are now a felon.

When Trump announced his intent to ban bump-fire stocks, Kool-Aid swigging idiots laughed it off. Nah; he’s posturing for the press.

When he sent his memo directing DOJ to begin crafting the rule, it was, Nah, they’ll ‘research’ it and ‘decide’ it isn’t called for.

When the ATF published the ANPRM, morons said, Nah; it’s a trick. They’ll take comments and ‘decide’ it’s unjustified, but Trump still gets to pretend he tried.

When the NPRM came out… rinse, lather, repeat.

When the final rule was published, the sandy-eyed ostriches declared, Don’t worry. Trump is a four-dimensional chess master; he knows the courts will overturn it. He’s gaming the system.

As the ban deadline approached without a favorable ruling from any court, the bird-brains nervously added, Um… the courts will temporarily stay the ban. Right?

When stays were issued on appeal, for the named plaintiffs ONLY, some folks optimisticallythought that was a blanket stay, and sighed in relief. It wasn’t.

When Guedes et al was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Pollyannas were sure they’d issue the stay, or at least remand back to the lower court to do so.

So here we are. I was never terribly hopeful about this because I lost faith in the courts a long time ago.

But… we are screwed.

The lawsuits challenging the ban continue. I’m sure people in denial are sure reality will win out. Look again: the lower courts have stated will every denial of a stay that the plaintiff are unlikley to succeed. That is, they are signalling that the ban will be upheld and they are going through the motions (no pun intended) merely for the sake of appearances.

And today, by refusing a stay, Roberts just said exactly the same thing: “You lose.” We lose bump-fire stocks. And remember my warnings about those semi-autos “easily converted” to machineguns with bump-fire stocks.

And anything and everything else that some bureaucrat decides he doesn’t like. Because all this hinged on a single point: Can unelected bureaucrats redefine common language to create law all by themselves?

Now we know the answer is yes, and the ATF declared hundreds of thousands of people to be felons. And that was a signal to every other bureaucrat in every other federal agency and department: Do whatever you want.

Today, Trabants became M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, on the whim of a bureaucrat, on the suggestion of a man with no respect for the Constitution and rule of what used to pass for law.

Added: Despite my pessimism, this still a battle worth fighting. Help the FPC help you.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) 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

Bump Stock Compliance

I did my bit.

If you can’t read that (the rubber bands interfered with scanner focus):

To whom it may concern,

Please find enclosed 1 “baker’s dozen” (representing the 13 colonies which rose up in armed rebellion in response to an attempted confiscation) potential bump-stock-type devices (BSTD).

While I realize that you have argued that rubber bands are not BSTDs, I choose not to take the chance, since rubber bands can provide the same spring effect of an Akins Accelerator-type device, and the ATF has a history of pseudo-random changes of mind (shoelaces coming to mind).

Please be assured that I am not in possession of any device you do consider to be a BSTD “machinegun,” unless you change your mind about belt loops which can operate in the same fashion as a springless BSTD.

 

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 (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.

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