Tag Archives: “assault weapon” ban

authoritarian swine, Constitution, Courts, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

I Expect Clarence Thomas Is Fuming Right About Now

November 5, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger

Because a three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld, 2-1, Illinois’ “assault weapon” ban in Bevis v. Naperville (which is actually six separate challenges to “assault weapon” bans in Illinois, consolidated), and mangled BRUEN in the process. To do this, the lying bastards started with the BS “weapons of war” argument. And went downhill from there.

Honestly, this decision reads like something you might expect from the Ninth Circuit.

We find substantial support for the proposition that the Arms protected by the Second Amendment do not include weapons that may be reserved for military use.

Because obviously AR-15s are just like “a nuclear weapon such as the now-retired M388 Davy Crockett system, with its 51-pound W54 warhead.” Seriously; they equated semi-auto rifles to nuclear warheads.

And to support that position, Easterbrook and Wood lied about Supreme Court rulings, starting with MILLER, 1939 which said exactly the opposite. This Court resorts to citing the dissent to magically turn military use into common, lawful civilian use, and pretends HELLER said that.

But after Heller, we know Miller does not address a weapon’s military use. Because the National Firearms Act of 1934 targeted the firearms most commonly used by criminals and gangs, Miller’s “lawful use” language relates to criminal use, not military use.

The term “lawful use” doesn’t even appear in MILLER. It had no “lawful use” test. It only used a militia use test:

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

HELLER addressed civilian use of weapons not specifically acknowledged as militarily useful, and asked if possession of those by civilians could be banned. The court concluded that civilian weapons in common, lawful use could not be banned; that there is an individual right to them. And that the right to those not necessarily military-style weapons was subject to reasonable limits.

HELLER didn’t overturn MILLER; it built on it, and added to it. Those judges damned well know what MILLER and HELLER really said. The fact that they twist the words, and outright lie, about them proves their intent was not innocent.

Now that Easterbrook and Wood have pretended that “weapons of war” aren’t 2A-protected, they have to “establish” that AR-15s are military weapons.

Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are much more like machineguns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature was entitled to conclude).8 Indeed, the AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16 machinegun.

How do they know?

The only meaningful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15 has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes advantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways.

Sure, an illegally modified AR-15 is is the same thing as an M16, just illegally mounting a 120mm cannon on a Trabant makes it an Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tank.

Speaking — currently — illegal modifications, these jokers used a timely example.

The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon.

Personally, I would have skipped that one, since the same day they issued this ruling, SCOTUS — facing a multi-Circuit split on the bump-stock ban — granted cert to Garland v. Cargill, challenging the ban.

So… they’ve lied their way into declaring that the 2A doesn’t protect “weapons of war,” and that AR-15s are in that class. Now they also had to deal with BRUEN‘s general, historical legal tradition test, which they handled with still more verbal manipulation and selective editing.

The analysis then moves to second step, which calls on the “government [to] justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. The Court predicted that this second step would be relatively easy in some instances, when historical analogues are easy to find. But in other instances, it recognized that the task would be challenging. It singled out “cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes,” which “may require a more nuanced approach.”

These two would have you believe that if something is new enough, then general, historical legal traditions don’t apply. But what they left out from BRUEN is this part.

Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.

Yes, the Constitution and the Second Amendment still apply to “new” things like the five decades-old design of the AR-15. Some restrictions on how they are used might be constitutional, but a ban isn’t.

As for “dramatic technological changes” that those early folks could never imagine…

James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.

Heck, an early machinegun was pitched to the US War Office in 1812, and patented in 1813 — during Madison’s presidency (and was a refinement of a 16th century machinegun).

Yet never once did Madison stop and say, “Whoa, guys! We didn’t have any of this new shit in mind. The Second Amendment is just for muskets.”

Speaking of “patented”, not only could the Founders envision dramatic technological changes, they counted on it and deliberately promoted it.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Yes, liars, the BRUEN test applies to AR-15s. And I challenge you to provide a citation of the nation’s general, historical legal tradition of banning civilian possession of “weapons of war.” Bear in mind you’ll have to explain away another pesky provision of the Constitution.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

In case the judges are unfamiliar with Letters of Marque pay attention, too):

Letter of marque, the name given to the commission issued by a belligerent state to a private shipowner authorizing him to employ his vessel as a ship of war. A ship so used is termed a privateer.

Not only was civilian ownership of real weapons of war not banned, they — again — counted on it. Muskets, rifles, cannon, warships; all of them. Moreso, in the case of muskets or rifles, they required private possession of those “weapons of war.”

Granted, these robed morons did cite some legal “traditions” that they would have you believe support a ban on an entire arbitrary class of firearms. But what they came up with were a series of local ordinances barring discharge of muskets and cannon in town, some isolated bans on Bowie knives, or openly carrying certain types of firearms.

They couldn’t find anything in relevant history of a general nature; and remember that BRUEN specifies that isolated local laws don’t count:

The bare existence of these localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry.

There’s nothing of a general law citation until the National Firearms Act of 1934, 143 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment. So my challenge stands.

The third member of the panel, Judge Brennan sanely dissented with his crazed colleagues. While he also addressed procedural issues with the passage of the state ban, he hit on the issues I’ve covered; albeit more formally and politely. Like me, he took issue with Easterbrook and Wood’s mangling and misinterpretations of HELLER and BRUEN. He also objected their “It’s military, so it isn’t protected” position: arms are arms, they’re all protected; some can be regulated but not banned.

I liked this bit that Brennan included, about the whole scary “AR-15s are weapons of war” thing:

The AR-15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semiautomatic.

That’s a point I’ve been raising for years. None do; the last country I found using them switched to select-fire assault rifles three decades ago.

All in all, I look forward to this being appealed to SCOTUS. I’m sure Clarence Thomas will insist the Court take this up, just so he can judicially bitch-slap Easterbrook and Wood for shredding BRUEN and HELLER.

Constitution, Courts, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

Good News From California

October 19, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

But don’t get too excited yet.

Federal Judge Strikes Down California’s Decades-Old ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban: ‘No Historical Pedigree’
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee, struck down the 1989 ban, enacted by the California legislature in response to the Stockton school shooting, which prohibits the transfer, manufacturing and possession of certain semiautomatic weapons. Benitez wrote that American tradition “is rich and deep in protecting a citizen’s enduring right to keep and bear common arms like rifles, shotguns, and pistols” and does not include firearm restrictions based on “looks or attributes.”

That’s our guy Benitez again. At least on 2A issues, he’s a constitutionalist, and he read and grasped BRUEN (something most of the Ninth Circuit Appeals haven’t managed).

The problem is that, as always, this case is going to keep bouncing back and forth to the Ninth for years, with endless stays of Benitez’s ruling. Unless and until SCOTUS starts issuing contempt of Supreme Court bench warrants for those who are willfully defying the Second Amendment and BRUEN.

But given that Chief Justice Roberts sided with the gun grabbers on the frame/receiver rule, don’t get too excited about warrants either.

authoritarian swine, Constitution, gun control, Law, Rights, SCOTUS

WA “Assault Weapon” Ban: A Dangerous Take On The Derivation Of Constitutional Authority

June 7, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 4 Comments

Yesterday, June 6, 2023, federal judge Robert J. Bryan issued a ruling denying a preliminary injunction against Washington’s “assault weapon” ban. In my not so humble opinion, this proves that it is high time for the elderly –88 years old — Bryan to retire.

Reading his decision, a couple of points jumped out at me. I’ll begin with one that would almost be funny if the topic, victim disarmament, weren’t so serious.

Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change – they allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns.

Possibly the mentally challenged judge meant that such arms can be fired repeatedly “as fast as they can pull the trigger.” But specificity in law matters; we’ll take him at his specific written word, and note that any firearm, since the medieval hand cannons fired by setting a light to the touch hole, can be fired simply by pulling the trigger.

Allowing that maybe in his dotage he did mean rapid repeat fire…

Paging Jerry Miculek!. Eight rounds on target. In one second. With a revolver, not a semiautomatic firearm.

Moving on to the very next sentence:

While semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 were invented in the 1950s, the growth in ownership of semiautomatic assault weapons proliferated in the late 2000s.

Invented in the 1950s? The first successful semiautomatic rifle design came in 1885. Bryan only missed it by seventy years. And the first semiautomatic pistol was 1891.

Bryan, please note those were in the 19th century. We’re currently in the 21st century, and the basic idea of semiautomatic firearms is hardly innovative anymore.

That part was merely morbidly amusing (if you have my sort of twisted sense of humor). Bryan’s explanation of why Washington’s ban does not run afoul of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling (which requires to be constitutional, a gun control law must be based in a general historical tradition) is scary. “General” meaning that isolated local laws don’t count; and “historical” meaning somewhere in the chronological neighborhood of the passage of the Second Amendment or earlier.

For an example of an applicable law, he cites local laws against carrying — not a ban on ownership — of Bowie knives not even invented until decades after the proper historical time frame. Bryan is clearly losing it.

Nay, completely lost it. Because he also cites…. Well, in his own words:

[C]omplete bans on the possession of certain weapons (as opposed to laws forbidding the carrying of those weapons) did not occur as much in our early Nation’s history because the federal and state governments did not have the “maturity, powers, tools, or resources” to implement and enforce a complete ban.

Yes, he cited nonexistent laws which he supposes would have been passed and enforced, if only the poor government had the sheer raw power to get away with it. In his mind, it seems that constitutional authority derives from tyrannical, police state force not the ratified agreed-to words of the actual document.

And I guess he figures that Washington has accumulated sufficient power now, so it’s all good.

We’ll see. If constitutional authority now comes down to who has the most guns and accurate targeting, and not the legal language of the Constitution and courts, Bryan may be putting himself out of work, retirement or no. After all, mightn’t some people decide that if might makes right, is on the side of the heaviest artillery; why not skip wasting money on court challenges and go straight to Bryan’s preferred test-by- fire-power?

This ruling was so bizarre that I wondered if his… thinking was reflected in other cases he’s heard. The very first case I found in a quick search was Tingley v. Equal Rights Washington, in which a therapist was challenging the state’s ban on “conversion therapy. Bryan ruled against Tingley.

Regardless of your personal take on “convesrion therapy” (“curing” people of homosexuality), Bryan’s rationale in this should also raise questions about his mental competence.

The prohibited conduct at issue here, performing conversion therapy, is analogous to doctor giving a prescription for marijuana because it involves engaging in a specific act designed to provide treatment. In contrast, the speech at issue in NIFLA, notice requirements that regulated the information a provider must give to its patients, is more analogous to a doctor recommending that a patient use marijuana because both consider information that a provider may discuss with a patient.

TL;DR: You can have opinions on “conversion therapy” or medical marijuana, and discuss the options with a patient. But you can no more conduct/prescribe “conversion therapy” than you could prescribe medical marijuana. Prescribing marijuana is unlawful, so “conversion therapy is unlawful. Or so Bryan thinks.

Except that in Washington, it is lawful to prescribe medical marijuana, and had been for decades when Bryan made that error-riddled ruling.

You’d think that a professionally, and mentally, competent judge could come up with a better comparison. Or at least one that wasn’t exactly the fricking opposite of what he was claiming. Considering the two cases together…

“Might makes right.” That’s one heck of a constitutional test. And I can hardly wait to see what the Ninth Circuit makes of the proposition. Do they uphold the state’s ban, or do they do a quick head count to see who has more guns and might — the state or the people — and decide accordingly?

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)

Courts, gun control, Humor, Law, You can't fix stupid

Possibly The Marines Need to Work On Their Marksmanship

February 12, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Because, after reading this “expert report” by retired Marine Colonel Craig Tucker, I’m wondering how many of those “9 assassination attempts” were failed, not-so-friendly-fire fragging attempts.

Tucker’s report is a court filing in support of California’s assault weapon ban et al. Go ahead and read it. It’ll infuriate and amuse you:

Stabilizing devices (for more accurate shooting) are bad. (Pistol grips.)

Destabilizing devices are bad, because shooting is less accurate. (That refers to unlocked(!?) folding stocks on M4s. Do the Marines issue M4s with folding — not adjustable — stocks?)

Flash hiders hide the flash from the enemy.

Swapping magazines is the most important thing Marines are taught. (See title re:marksmanship)

The M16/M4 is specifically rifled to make bullets tumble.

“A single round [of .223!] is capable of severing the upper body from the lower body”

The semi-auto AR-15 is functionally identical to the full-auto M4.

And apparently the Marines are now buying M4s specifically chambered for .223 Remington, not 5.56 NATO.

This guy must have been a joy to serve under, and I’d like to hear from anyone who had that… privilege. Well, I guess there was a Captain who served under him and presumably enjoyed it, even if it got Tucker relieved of command (and apparently driven into retirement).

There’s another court filing in rebuttal to Tucker’s not-very-expert opinion. J. Buford Boone all but says outright that Tucker is full of s**t. He might as well.

His claim that a single small arms projectile is capable of “severing the upper body from the lower body, or decapitation” is so ridiculous that it should, and actually does, cast doubt on his qualifications as an expert in the field of firearms, particularly as it relates to wound ballistics.

California must be pretty darned desperate if the’re having to bring in Tucker as an expert.

Hat tip to Wisco Dave and Kenny.

authoritarian swine, Constitution, gun control, gun grabbers, Law

How Many Doors?

February 7, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

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

I seem to be re-using that quote a lot lately; here we go again. A few days ago, I wrote about a New Mexico bill to ban “assault pistols” (and other things). That bill would ban future transfers, but leave currently possessed items alone. Clearly state Rep. Andrea Romero and her co-conspirators couldn’t settle for that. (There are actually several bills, but I’ll focus on one.)

Thus, she has filed HB 101 – RELATING TO FIREARMS; PROHIBITING LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES; PROHIBITING ASSAULT WEAPONS; PROVIDING PENALTIES.

This would be an outright ban (for civilians) of “large-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons;” no grandfathering whatsoever.

A person shall not possess, manufacture, purchase, sell or transfer any large-capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. This section shall not apply to magazines originally designed to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition that have been modified to accept no more than ten rounds and that are not capable of being readily restored to a capacity of more than ten rounds.

B. For the purposes of this section, “large-capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition.

A person shall not manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell or transfer any assault weapon.

So, Ms. Romero: How many doors? How many doors are you willing to kick in solely because the residents are well armed? Have you asked that question of the street level cops who would be enforcing your diktat, or are you going to lead the stacks personally, as an inspiration for them?

Have you even heard of NYSRP v. Bruen?

And I see that while you would ban possession of these… evil weapons of mass destruction designed to kill as many people as possible, as many of your political persuasion describe them, you’re just fine with government agents (your door-kicking cops/enforcers) having them and obtaining more. Why is that?

C. Subsection B of this section shall not apply to:

(1) any government officer, agent or employee, a member of the armed forces of the United States or a peace officer to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon and does so while acting within the scope of that person’s duties;

Why do your favored cops need the capability to kill as many of us as possible?

Why do you want them to be able to kill us?

These are not rhetorical questions, and I have asked them of Romero directly. She has not responded.

authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban Oddities

January 14, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 5 Comments

I had occasion to look over the definitions section of Illinois’ new assault weapon ban bill, and I noticed some odd stuff.

First, Illinois achieved a first-in-the-world prize: semiautomatic “assault rifles.”

Knowledgeable types understand that “assault rifle” has long had a specific meaning: a shoulder-fired, selective-fire weapon chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

Not in Illinois now.

“Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer:

The “following is a long list of specific manufacturers’ firearms. It does include “AR15,” but…

“AR-15” (note the dash) is a registered trademark held by Colt. The patents expired, but the trademark lives on. That’s why other companies tend to call their AR variants “XXX-15” or the like. So any AR-pattern firearm made by a company not on that list would appear to have dodged a bullet, and would seem to be still legal in the state (not really, but I’ll get to that).

Some notable AR-pattern manufacturers didn’t make the list. Daniel Defense, for instance.

Farther down in the bill, “assault weapon” gets defined. That’s an “assault pistol” (similarly defined as assault rifle), assault shotgun, assault rifle, and…

(C) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

The list of characteristics includes the usual: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, and grenade launcher(?). It also lists certain types of grips. Read this very carefully.

Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing.

That’s any stock — pistol grip or no pistol grip — that lets you grip the rifle and still reach the trigger. Should any sheriff other than Cook County try enforcing this monstrosity, I think some hunters will be very surprised to learn their hunting rifles are now assault weapons, which must be registered.

Y’all have fun with that.

Here’s a puzzler. The law has an overly inclusive definition of “assault weapon” which includes “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following.”

But it also has that separate and — overly — specific definition of “assault rifle”: “”Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer.” Every firearm listed in that section would already qualify as an “assault weapon” under the broader definition.

Why the two definitions? Did the idiot legislators (or whoever drafted the bill for them) think they were banning actual automatic assault rifles, in addition to darned near every other semiauto rifle, despite the fact that 720 ILCS 5/24-1 already banned automatic weapons?

I’ve asked Rep. Bob Morgan about this. We’ll see if I get a coherent response.

Action, authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Inspiration, Law, resistance, spirit of rebellion

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban

January 12, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

Illinois now has an “assault weapon” ban, complete with registration for “grandfathered” firearms.

Wiser sheriffs says they will not enforce the blatantly unconstitutional law. I would guess they are the ones aware of the SCOTUS decision in BRUEN. Or possibly they recall an observation I made in the 1990s, when California was prepping its own outright ban.

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

— Moi

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker doesn’t seem to be cognizant of either the decision or the quote.

“As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in fact do their job or they won’t be in their job,” Pritzker said.

Well, he’s a Dim; it’s not like he really wants cops anyway.

But since I mentioned California’s ’90s ban and registration, they saw a remarkable 2.33% compliance rate with registration (by their own estimates). The NY SAFE Act did a little betterworse 4.45%. Connecticut rather optimistically claimed to have achieved 13.44% complaince rate. But CT’s numbers are somewhat questionable, seeing as how one single individual “registered” 544,000 high capacity magazines.

Perhaps Illinois will see a similar outburst of malicious compliance and the overly compliant stuffing their database with BS. Could some enterprising freedom-lover register a few dozen evil black rifles at 410 E Jackson Street, Springfield, IL 62701?

Databases: Garbage in, garbage out.

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Law

Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban Dropped

March 12, 2021 Carl Bussjaeger 6 Comments

Bill text HERE.

As you’d expect, Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021” is a mess. The only good not-quite-revolution-inducing part is that everything owned — “assault weapons” and normal capacity magazines (i.e.- more than ten rounds) is grandfathered; you can keep them.

Feinstein’s press release includes the usual drivel.

“Assault weapons are designed for a single purpose – to kill as many people as possible in as short an amount of time as possible.”

Really? Taking a quick look at her abomination, I see this.

‘‘(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
10 ‘‘(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale
11 to, transfer to, or possession by the United States
12 or a department or agency of the United States or
13 a State or a department, agency, or political subdivi-
14 sion of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession
15 by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by
16 the United States or a department or agency of the
17 United States or a State or a department, agency,
18 or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of
19 law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale
20 or transfer to or possession by a campus law en-
21 forcement officer for purposes of law enforcement
22 (whether on or off duty);

So law enforcement needs the ability “to kill as many people as possible in as short an amount of time as possible”? I feel threatened.

I’m not going to fisk the bill line by line. If you can read this, you can read the bill. Anyone who lived through the ’94 AWB will find it fairly familiar, but updated for firearm models that are new since then, or more common. But the definitions are interesting.

‘(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’
22 means any of the following, regardless of country of manu-
23 facture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

‘‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that—
‘‘(i) has the capacity to utilize a magazine
that is not a fixed magazine; and
‘‘(ii) does have any 1 of the following:
2 ‘‘(I) A pistol grip

After a few pages of banned models, we encounter some more definitions, including “pistol grip.”

‘‘(45) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-
14 hole stock or Thordsen-type grip or stock, or any other
15 characteristic that can function as a grip.

I’ll repeat that: any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

Looks like a Feinstein pistol grip, Elmer. Good thing I don’t see an external magazine.

gun control, gun grabbers, Law, So Much Stupid!

Resolution 13 is all too aptly numbered

February 20, 2020 Carl Bussjaeger

Last month, I found an “assault weapon” ban I could support, as it was so poorly written it banned major malfunctions.

Over in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Commissioner Lyndon B. Johnson (yes, that’s his name; I wonder about that middle initial stands for) has proposed RESOLUTION NO. 13 OF 2020. The intent of the resolution is to beg the state to infringe on the human rights of innocent people.

Yep, Johnson is a violence-enabling victim disarmer. It’s a gun control proposal.

The meat of the one page document is

Support legislation which strengthens the Louisiana Gun Laws by incorporating mandatory requirements for owning and carrying a firearm as well as legislation making it illegal to possess and use assault weapons (full automatic and semiautomatic with magazines/clips over 20 rounds,) except for the active military or law enforcement while on duty.

That language is a hoot. Regardless of the intent, the first part parses out as mandating owning and carrying a firearm. Johnson should have to learned to diagram sentences in English class.

The second, “assault weapon” ban, part is just plain idiotic: “full automatic and semiautomatic with magazines/clips over 20 rounds”.

As phrased, your firearm — full- or semi-auto — would only be an “assault weapon” while you have a 20+ round magazine in it.

That’s funny. I could get behind that resolution, if only to embarrass the parish idiot.

[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 ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

authoritarian swine, gun control, Junk Science, So Much Stupid!

Rorschach Research Associates

September 9, 2019 Carl Bussjaeger 3 Comments

The news today is full of the latest poll alleging massive support for an “assault weapon” ban, universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, and more human/civil rights violations. The numbers claimed were so outrageous I was sure it would prove to be another Quinnipiac poll.

But not this this time; it was conducted by Langer Research Associates, an outfit of whom I’ve never heard before.

I had some time to kill, so I took a look at the poll data. This was a “nationwide” telephone survey of 1,003 people, supposedly randomly dialed. There is no further information on methodology. But given the questions they asked, no methodology was going to save them.

16. Would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?

They failed to define “assault weapon,” a term with different meanings in a few jurisdictions and none in most. Therefore the question has zero meaning, or a wildly variable meaning in the mind of each individual respondent.

Did they mean an “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 federal law? A Massachusetts assault weapon whose definition was based on the ’94 federal law until it was bureaucratically expanded? The NY definition which encompasses both more and less? The CA definition which covers even more, while missing things covered by the others? Respondents were left to their own imagination.

17. Would you support or oppose [ITEM]?

a. requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows

All retail sales require background checks already. It’s already unlawful to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. The question should mention costs, too. It should note that nearly all firearms used in crimes are obtained unlawfully, bypassing any required checks.

b. a nationwide ban on high capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets

“Clips” are devices used to load magazines, and hold cartridges, not just bullets. The most common clips already hold 10 or fewer cartridges.

c. a law allowing the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others

Such laws already exist. Their summary refers to “red flag” laws, so for the question to have meaning, they must specify that the order would be ex parte and the subject would not have the chance to speak in his defense and that the accuser need provide no evidence (if there were evidence, a regular arrest warrant could be issued).

d. a mandatory buy back program in which the federal government would require assault weapon owners to turn in those weapons in exchange for payment

Again, “assault weapon” must be defined, and the payment specified. For instance, New Zealand’s new ban specifies a maximum payment below market value, which may be part of why compliance is running below 10% (and dropping with each “buyback” event).

18. Who do you trust more to handle gun laws in this country – (Trump) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

That question is so biased that, if I had been polled, I would have hung up on the idiots. It presupposes that more gun laws are desirable. It frames the debate as an individual vs. a Dem majority. (Incidentally, Trump has implemented more new firearm restrictions in this year, than the Democrats have managed in the past twelve years.)

19. How confident are you that [ITEM] would reduce mass shootings in this country – very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?

You failed to define “mass shooting.” The GVA definition, which includes people not shot? The CRS/FBI definition which excludes gangbangers shooting it out over turf and revenge? Meaningless question.

21. Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?

I’ve always found that question amusing. Imagine answering your own phone one day and hearing, “Hi! I’m a stranger randomly dialing numbers, so I don’t really know where you live. Will you tell me if you have valuable merchandise that’s easily stolen?”

It gets even better when you toss that question in with the suggestion of confiscation.

All in all, the clowns didn’t find “support” for anything specific. They conducted a verbal Rorschach test of “support” for whatever was in the mind of each individual. They might as well have asked, “Do you support or oppose color?” And left it to each person to guess if they meant color vs. B&W imagery, people of color, or red vs. blue.

I’d like to see more detail on the methodology. Did they ask the questions of whomever answered the phone, or ask for youngest likely voter? Someone else? What regions did they poll, and how did they weight responses? It doesn’t much matter, given the questions, but I’d like to further ridicule 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 ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Username

Password


Remember me

Forgot Password?
Join Us

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.