Apparently she never heard of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Yes, 1988; undetectable guns have been unlawful for 31 years. That’s puts her down in the same low IQ bracket as Pennsylvania’s Madeleine Dean who entered a bill to specifically make it illegal to violate the UFA.
26. “UNDETECTABLE” MEANS NOT DETECTABLE BY AN X-RAY MACHINE, PORTABLE PULSED X-RAY GENERATOR, METAL DETECTOR OR MAGNETOMETER WHEN SET AT A STANDARD CALIBRATION, OR ANY OTHER MACHINE USED TO SCREEN OR INSPECT A PERSON AND AN OBJECT FOR A FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN.
The required (by the UFA, and generally if you don’t want your gun to explode) metal will show up on an X-ray.
And should someone 3-D print a plastic item sans metal…
Yes, plastic does show up in X-rays.
At least the NY Dims are wasting their time on this instead of more real infringements.
[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)
I have come to the conclusion that Eric Swalwell actually is insane. I don’t mean that as hyberbole, or in a gratuitously insulting way.
I think he is crazy.
Frankly, I thought it was rather odd when he noted that “The government has nukes,” then said he was sure he and the people he threatens could find “common ground” if we just talked. We were talking, and he threatened overwhelming military force against civilians.
That isn’t normal.
Since then, I and others have been pressing him on the question which most victim disarmers avoid like the plague: How?
How is he going to enforce his proposed ban? Particularly, how is he going to accomplish a ban and turn-in when even registration schemes never get compliance rates out of the low double-digits? When even a ban on toys — bump-fire stocks — saw a compliance rate of less than one-third of one percent? And despite weeks of checking, I can only document a single bump-fire stock turned in to the ATF. Even when faced with draconian penalties under the NFA. (Unless you count my baker’s dozen.)
How, Swalwell? How are you going to get those guns?
NRA Twitter is losing its mind with “how is Swalwell going to take guns from law-abiding owners.” SPOILER: I’m not. I’m organizing with the Moms & students, and we’re going to CHANGE the law. Weapons of war will be no more. #BanandBuyBack #EndGunViolence
“[W]e’re going to CHANGE the law. Weapons of war will be no more.”
I see. That does answer the “how” question. Change the law and the firearms magically evaporate. He doesn’t have to go aftersend the Army after us.
It has to be magic, because the whole point of our questioning was based upon noncompliance with unconstitutional laws. Noncompliance which has been documented for decades.
The “weapons of war” (he also hasn’t told me what nation generally issues semi-automatic rifles to its regular troops) will simply be no more. Poof.
That is not the thinking of a person making radio contact with reality.
We have a man who threatens to kill Americans, and is clearly delusional. Eric Swalwell needs to be Baker Acted as a clear danger to himself and everyone in the country. I’d say “red flagged, too, but even this psycho has constitutional rights.
[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)
Years ago in a galaxy far far away, I served on the board of a couple of Second Amendment groups. One of them very much a grassroots group and it was very active in the legislative process and citizen lobbying. Contrary to what people are sometimes lead to think, “lobbyist” is not a dirty word, or a bad thing. Many people have jobs, employers seem to expect that their employees will be at those jobs. So, when there is legislation that matters to gun owners be it a bill to expand gun rights or a bill proposing further infringement of a law-abiding citizens rights with yet another gun control scam disguised as “gun safety” it would seem fair that the law-abiding citizen should also have their voice heard. Ahh, the conundrum. What is the law-abiding citizen to do? They have a job, but they also have rights that need to be defended. Well, the Second Amendment groups in the state went together and hired a lobbyist to be present at the hearings and speak on behalf of the voters that held opinions most firm about further infringement of their G-d given rights, namely self-defense. From time to time the lobbyist would be accompanied to these hearings by the leadership of the Second Amendment rights groups, and I was privileged to be one of those. A citizen lobbyist, who also happened to represent a passel of voters. I had the high heels and a sparkly barrette. I considered these vital, but not as vital as a couple of other things I possessed. A mission, and resolve. I enjoyed this mission, legislators can be quite tasty if bar-b-qued with BBQ sauce. /snark, remember, I’m a vegetarian.
It’s been a while since I’ve attended a rally day. In my state there has been a Second Amendment day at the Capitol for years. Usually towards the end of the season, and usually there is a major bill or two we are wanting big time bad, or a big time bad bill we want to see die an inglorious death. I started going back before my state had concealed carry, the lobby was packed full that day, it was standing room only. For years I went every year, even spoke at a couple of them. The last few years I haven’t made it, for various and sundry reasons. But I’ve made it the last couple of years, and this year was just grand.
I did the hike from the parking lot to the capitol and entered the door to the meeting area. The police were there with the airport style scanning machine. I was met by a young police officer when I placed my purse on the table. He regarded my purse dubiously.
Sir: “Ma’am, are you lawfully carrying concealed?”
Me: Yup
Sir: “I’m going to need a driver’s license and a concealed carry card”.
Me: You are an officer of the law, you should already have these credentials.
After a second for my brain to catch up with my mouth, I grinned at him and said, I’ve got to get them out of my purse, ok?
Sir: “Yep, I have a concealed carry. My friends ask me why I bother and I tell them because it’s the right thing to do.”
Me: I like you, I like the way you think.
He regards the depths of my purse skeptically after he studys my cards.
Sir: “Do you carry in your purse?”
Me: Nope.
Sir: “Good, I worry that if a purse was stolen you’ve now lost your defensive tools.”
Me: Oh I do like you, nope, no purse carry.
Sir: “Which side are you carrying on?”
I answer him, and he tells me after I set off the machine the officer at the other end will wand me. I go through, set off the machine get wanded and I’m good to go. I thank them both for what they do.
I went in, said hi to a lobbyist I’ve worked with, sat with some dear people that I haven’t seen for awhile and listened to some great speakers. The MC is well known in the Second Amendment arena as the guy that wrote the book on gun laws. Which is fair enough, he did write the book on gun laws.
It was interesting, the speakers were great, acoustics are always challenging in that room, but still it was good. Two floors up there was some sort of school event going on. A bunch of school children, I’m guessing pre-teen, or early teens must have disapproved of us being allowed to speak in public. When one of the speakers would start to speak, they would start yelling trying to drown out the speaker. Think there is much indoctrination going on in the tax payer funded schools? I’m telling you, Zehut has the right idea, school vouchers for everyone.
After rally we all split up to go speak with our legislators about the bills we want passed, and I also wanted to mention my extreme aversion to “Guilty until proven innocent” Red Flag gun confiscation. I had mentioned my aversion to my former lobbyist mentor and he said while of course the misogynistic mad mommies are pushing for it, it hasn’t gained traction. Good to hear. I don’t know why mad mommies hate women so much that they want to deprive them of a tool that even elderly women can use to equalize the situation, but they do.
Our MC ended the rally with his trademark line, “It’s a good day for liberty”. He always opened his monthly column with that line. And it was a good day for liberty, every day is a good day for liberty. But we must fight for it, there are forces that will not be happy until they have all the power they want, and as long as there are armed citizens, they know that won’t happen. They use whatever tactics they think will work, whether it is going after politicians sympathetic to us with blatant lies and accusations that their allies in the mainstream media help them spread or lies about “ghost guns” or citizens that defended themselves. Be it vote fraud or illegal immigrants voting, they will use it.
We must remain strong in our convictions and our determination. Where the room was packed a few years ago when we wanted, demanded, concealed carry it was now not as full. Attendance was good, but it needs to be bigger. I saw one old friend, he and his young son were there. This man and his wife want their children to learn about freedom and the legislative process and how the two go together. Those kids have been citizen lobbyists since they were probably 4 or 5 years old. Maybe even younger. The legislators sit up and take notice when large groups of people have taken the day off work and showed up to demand their rights be honored. G-d gives rights, legislators recognize or infringe on them.
My lobbying mission finished, I headed for the exit for the drive home. As I walked by the door to the exit I passed the door you enter, Sir and his partner were still there checking people, I smiled and waved at them and said thank you, they both smiled and waved back. It never hurts for the Second Amendment people to be the nice polite friendly ones.
So if you have a chance, and your state has a rally day yearly, go. See friends, network, make friends, talk to your legislative critters. Don’t let bloombergs paid harpies be the only voice being heard at your capitol.
Tonight starts Pesach, Passover. We each leave our own slavery in Egypt behind. I believe it is a constant process, sometimes easier, sometimes harder. But I don’t want to be one of the Jews that chose to stay behind in Egypt rather than face the unknown. I believe that G-d does want freedom for us. This year is a very meaningful Pesach for me, and I hope that you all will have a very blessed holiday as well. Thank you for being with us, The Zelman Partisans as we travel this path together.
Leaving Egypt and slavery
My friend used the line “It’s a good day for liberty” to open his columns, I wrote him and told him I was poaching it for a column. He wrote back fried, poached or boiled, if it’s for the cause it should be used.
I always ride for the brand and I always ended my columns with my own sign off.
Chicago Tribune’s Dahleen Glanton has a plan to offset Illinois’ oh-so-expensive violation of Second Amendment rights: Do it even more.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say that gun ownership has to be free of charge
But the freedom to own a firearm doesn’t mean it has to be free of charge. It doesn’t mean that owners can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced. And someone’s right to own a gun certainly does not trump the safety rights of the rest of us.
How ’bout charging Chicago South Side would-be voters $250 for voter registration, and making them pay another $100 for a background check?
To paraphrase: But who says that the people who choose to vote shouldn’t have to go into their pocketbooks every now and then? Voters have no problem approving taxes on other people for the latest welfare benefit. But if you ask them to get free voter registration cards they go ballistic. They are perfectly satisfied allowing taxpayers who would never get EBT to supplement the administrative costs for their munchies.
Perhaps $250 for a reporter’s license, and a hundred buck background check for each ill-considered column?
License to practice religion? (Huh; churches are specifically exempted from taxes.)
Hey! You could pay $250 to be free of warrantless searches.
Glanton, peruse the Bill of Rights, and tell us which — other than the Second Amendment — routinely require permission slips and preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks.
Speedy and fair trial license?
Here’s a wild idea. Instead of treating an enumerated right as a privilege to be taxed, stamped, regulated, restricted, folded, spindled, and mutilated — at some cost to government and victim alike — let’s save money — for government and victim alike — by treating the Second Amendment as the right that it is.
The money you save could be better spent on tracking down actual criminals who bypass your permission slips anyway. Of course SA Kim Foxx will probably just let them go, since dealing with real criminals is tough and scary. Honest citizens are easier marks.
[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)
I have a girlfriend that recently got a e-mail at her job. She works in a very safe, secure building and profession. It’s a gun-free zone. It’s a two story building with lots of great nooks, crannies and places where people could hide. But hey, they do have a armed security guard. One.
She recently got a email talking about the shooting of a healthcare worker in another state and urging people to keep their eyes open, be aware and take the deescalation classes offered. Oh, well, at least there is a sound plan in place. And there is a plan in place. If they can get to a phone, they can have a page sent out warning and letting security know where the problem is. Then everyone is to hide in place and try to protect their patients.
Officials say within minutes the suspected gunman was in custody. The hospital immediately issued a code silver and locked down the hospital as law enforcement went door to door to ensure the safety of all patients.
Hospital President Charles Williams gave a statement
“As you can imagine…It’s difficult,” Williams said. “Whenever you have someone of your family, we’re family here it’s tough”
Well, I’m sure that is reassuring to the healthcare worker and their family. Might have given them more of a feeling of warm fuzzy if your facility actually made some policy change that didn’t designate them to being a fish in a barrel wearing the proper color of scrubs. FYI, many hospitals have gone to color coding employees. All nursing wears only X color of scrubs, all lab wears only Y color of scrubs, X-ray wears only Z color of scrubs. Most patients don’t seem to realize what it means, but the hospital feels like it’s “done something” from what I heard.
SC hospital security conversation revived after 2 shootings in 2 days. They are discussing making enhanced penalties for attacks against healthcare workers. That was removed as part of sentencing reform in 2010. I’m sure that schizophrenic, or meth head, or pissed off drunk, abusive but “loving” father who just almost killed his toddler, vengeful ex-louse spouse, upset family member will certainly be deterred by increased penalties. That will no doubt stop them cold. I’m not saying they don’t make sense, they do.
But S.C. Hospital Association spokesman Schipp Ames argues health care facilities are a different working environment than anywhere else.
“They’re open to patients and visitors. We have open facilities people can come in and out of. We have sensitive actions with people,” he said. “Why are we not treating them differently?”
The idea, Ames said, is to put enhanced penalties in hospitals that would establish them as designated safe zones.
I’m saying they won’t make a bit of difference. And, I think there is another element that either isn’t being reported yet, or experienced in the US to the degree it has been in Europistan and Englandistan.
The female anaesthetist said the German health service has been completely overwhelmed by the influx of Muslim asylum-seekers who are REFUSING to be treated by female medics. …
She also claimed huge numbers of the asylum-seekers have Victorian diseases including TB, which they risk passing on to locals. …
The doctor, who wished to remain anonymous, wrote to the press back home in the Czech Republic to express her shock at the “unsustainable” situation which she says is now affecting the medical care received by taxpaying Germans. She said: “Clinics cannot handle emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the hospitals….
“Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units….
“They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: ‘So, cure them here yourselves!’ So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also large pharmacies.”…
In one shocking incident medic also claimed how migrants STABBED the doctors who tried to save a tiny eight-month-old baby which had been “dragged across half of Europe for three months”.
She said: “The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany.
“The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are laid up in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.
“The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we know about it through email.
“What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed a doctor and nurses with a knife?
But, lest you think that it’s only the stress of being ill or having a sick family member that brings this out.
Then in Multi-cultural Swedenistan there was the 2016 murder of Alexandra Mezher. The Swedes sent a stern message of warning to any other “refugees” that might thing about doing anything like that in the future.
In August, 2016 he was sentenced to psychiatric care, ordered to pay SEK 300,000 in compensation to Mehzer’s family. If discharged he will also be deported and forbidden from returning to Sweden until 2026. After appeal, the court of appeal upheld the sentence, except extending the deportation until 2031.
Yep, he’d be allowed to return. It’s sort of like the laws making attacking a healthcare worker stiffer. Pointless, but we “did something”.
But it’s not just healthcare clinics and hospitals that feel their employees are a dime a dozen and easily replaceable, despite their being “family” and all.
We’ve all read the stories of Pizza drivers, Uber and Lyft drivers that are expected to be easy targets or face the wrath of their employers.
A pizza deliveryman won’t face charges for fatally shooting a would-be robber several times when he was approached in a high-crime area, but his employer, Pizza Hut, has fired him for violating a company policy against carrying firearms.
“We’re doing all that we can to help him with the transition,” Pizza Hut spokesperson Chris Fuller told the Des Moines Register. The driver, James William Spiers III, was offered two months pay (without tips, naturally) and counseling in exchange for his resignation.
A pizza delivery driver who shot and killed a man who stabbed him during an attempted robbery in Beaver Falls has been fired from his job.
Full disclosure here, I haven’t eaten at a PepsiCo owned joint in years since I found out about their anti-Second Amendment stance. No Taco Smell, No KFC, No Pizza Hut, etc.
But it’s not just pizza delivery drivers that are sitting targets.
Law enforcement sources tell the Problem Solvers surveillance video shows a 14-year-old suspect sticking a gun in the face of the clerk. Moments later the clerk, who has a conceal carry permit, took out his own gun and fired once, hitting the suspect in his stomach.
Nor is it just using a gun that will get you fired.
Do these companies have a right to determine their policies? Certainly. Do they have a right to make a condition of employment that you forfeit your life willingly if attacked a condition of you working for them. Well, I suppose they do. But are those companies and institutions that do this being honest about it? No, no they aren’t. If they were the employment contract would read something along the lines of
In case of emergency, such as being attacked whether by animal or human beast we expect you to willingly leave your spouse alone to raise your children, or in the case of a single parent to leave your children orphans. We expect you to willingly leave your elderly parents grieving the loss of their child and without someone to look after them in their “golden years”. Under no circumstances, and in no way are you to fight back or attempt to preserve your life, or the life of your co-workers or those you take care of, be it school children or patients. But, we will give you two weeks paid vacation, five days of sick time and a mediocre heath-care plan and you can join our credit union.
Naturally the benefits offered would be institution or company specific, but you get the idea.
So, why would it be this way. I suspect it is for the same reasons business have been told by their insurance companies they have to be “gun-free” zones for their insurance. I recently read something that just ticked me right off.
I have been told that many employers ban carry by their employees because they’ve been told that it is less costly to let workers compensation pay for injury or death of the employee than to deal with a lawsuit from someone the employee felt forced to shoot.
All this is because insurance companies want the cheapest way out. Your lives don’t matter to them, your spouse, parents and children don’t matter to them. Remember, the insurance companies supported obamacare.
There are many times I long for a “gun-free zone” liability act. This is one of those time. It’s not that I don’t support the right of a business to make their own policies, I do. I had a conversation with a jeweler one time after I started patronizing his business. At one time he was posted “gun-free” and I wouldn’t go in there. When I noticed the sign was down, I went in to look for a watch band and asked him about it. He said he supported the Second Amendment, he had his CCW and carried, but his insurance company told him he had to do it if he wanted insurance. So how is that giving business owners the right to make their own policies?
Life is precious, even in tough times it can be sweet, there can be good, there can be blessings if we are open to seeing them. That it can be sold out so cheaply by an entity with a bias against it’s preservation by use of an effective tool is just wrong. And it’s evil. That so many young people have been indoctrinated to believe “violence is never the answer” is wrong and evil. Sometimes violence is not only the best answer, it’s the only answer. Because life does matter, don’t ever sell it cheap.
“Strict scrutiny” seems to the the latest bugaboo of the victim disarmers, especially in Iowa. It’s been showing up in my 2A firearms news feeds a lot in recent weeks.
And here is a somewhat typical example (and yet, atypical in an important way).
TUESDAY TOPIC: Proposed gun amendment would make Iowa less safe
Strict scrutiny is the most demanding legal standard applied in constitutional cases. It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional until the state proves otherwise. This legislation provides no exceptions, not even for laws prohibiting gun possession by violent offenders or for criminal laws that enhance sentences for crimes when a firearm is used.
“It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional”
Unless Iowa has judicial procedures which greatly differ from those of the rest of the country, that appears — to this legal layman — to be a significant… mischaracterization of the meaning of strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny does not require a judge to assume a law is unconstitutional until proven otherwise. In fact, no level of scrutiny — intermediate or rational basis review imposes such a requirement.
What strict scrutiny does require is that a judge begin by determining whether a challenged law infringes on a constitutional limit, and — if so — apply a three part test, each of which the law must pass.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, such protecting the public against a specific threat.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, to avoid unnecessary infringements.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. Banning an entire class of firearms to prevent crime, when that class is rarely used in crimes, is not the least restrictive.
Basically, need, targeted at the problem, and doesn’t hurt anyone else. Think about that. Do you really want laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible?
And that’s strict scrutiny, applied comparatively rarely. Intermediate and rational basis review can allow laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible, which is why people-controlling victim disarmers hate strict scrutiny. Bottaro appears to prefer Intermediate scrutiny, in which restrictions on rights are merely “related” to the supposed need.
Or so I hope. A great many victim disarmers would much prefer presenting a “hypothetical” need.
Personally, I’d prefer another level of scrutiny: Constitutional. The test would be simple.
Does it infringe, even slightly, on an enumerated constitutional provision? If it does, it fails; go get a constitutional amendment. Because… just for example, the Second Amendment does not read “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless there is compelling governmental interest to do so.”
If there is a compelling governmental interest which requires going against the Constitution, then there is a compelling governmental interest in presenting Congress and the States with a proposed constitutional amendment.
But I digress.
I said that example from Tim Bottaro is atypical of the “strict scrutiny” columns I’ve seen recently. That’s because the author blurb at the bottom of the column says that Bottaro is an attorney. Unlike the usual MDA/Brady-fed laymen who whine ignorantly about scrutiny, Bottaro should know better. In fact, Jackie Stellish, also writing from Sioux City, seems to have a better grasp of scrutiny than Bottaro. Or is more honest.
I wonder if an attorney so grossly misinforming the public is a matter into which the Iowa State Bar Association might wish to look.
[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)
“…99.997% who are well aware of the blatant abuse this nonsense is and will continue to be, not to mention its wholesale uncontsitutionality, and putting their nickel on “the ban can’t stand”,”
Judging by reactions I get, I doubt the number of sensible people is anywhere near 99%. Take this recent comment regarding my compliance rate column:
“I would say this, if I owned a bumpstock. you can have it.. And no, I wan’t no reason to waste ammo. I do not own one. I have belt loops on my pants. Bump stocks be damned. IT WAS JUST A GIMMICK. Let it fade. I like people, the nut job in Vegas, not so much. Think about that, Las Vegas, and there might be a nut job in the mix. Where will I vacation next?”
.
After a year and a half of discussion that person still doesn’t get it. “Let it fade,” and you let all law fade, and we live by royal whim, imperial fiat. “Stroke of the pen” and all that entails.
Nor should anyone who has been paying attention to the courts assume “the ban can’t stand.” Not just the courts hearing the bump-fire cases, which have uniformly stated that the plaintiffs (our side) are unlikely to succeed (with one lone dissent), but other cases: courts finding it unlawful to follow the law as written because a previous president chose to ignore the law, Portland protestors shutting down interstate (and international) coal traffic as the authorities refuse to do anything about it. A judge who found pipeline protestors innocent: “not responsible by reason of necessity”.
The ban well may stand.
“Anyone determined enough to protect his investment AND his rights will have had six months to think and plan slowluy acquire the necessities to ferret their hunk of plastic away somewhere safe and impossible to find.”
“Soom enough BATF will have at least as much egg on their mugs”
Egg in their beer is looking more likely, considering that the DC Appeals court made arguments for the ATF, claims even the feds declined to make, to rationalize upholding the ban.
“HOW can the government of one state order private entities in another state and tell them what they may/mayn’t DO…” the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution prohibits that.
How can the courts rule that “function of the trigger” means volitional movement of a finger? And yet, they have. But I’ll give you a hint how that can happen, although I don’t know if this has been raised in the bizarre NJ case: constructive possession; a California prosecutor could argue that a standard capacity magazine shipped to California remains in the constructive possession of the shipper until it is delivered to the purchaser. Thus, the shipper “possessed” the arbitrarily-unlawful magazine in California, and is subject to their law. Take one look at the Ninth Circus and tell — with a straight face — that they would not buy that legal contortion.
Or the Supreme Court. Remember, these are the judicial gymnasts who, for eighty years, have upheld the National Firearms Act on the grounds that such items can be regulated because they are not militarily useful, but that machineguns can be regulated because they are.
“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.”
Overturning the bump-fire ban is not a slam dunk in an age where the laws is whatever the government says it is today. And remember that the ATF and Courts are both parts of that government.
We are fighting lunatics and liars — DOJ attorneys like Eric Soskin and judges alike — who matter-of-factly state that fingers are triggers, and the only difference between a machinegun and a semi-auto is whether the finger is moved volitionally. (Which, coupled with the concept that a select-fire trigger group is a machinegun itself, makes your finger one such if you are moving it.)
That fight will be long and hard. And expensive. Two of the major groups leading the challenges to the ban are the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America. They can use your support in this.
(Other groups and individuals raising money to fight the ban can drop a link in comments, and I’ll update this list to include 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; contact me if you’re interested in a ’96 Ranger with less than 85K miles)) 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!
It’s time to play “Fisk the Bogus Research” again. Today’s offering:
Cooling-off period for handgun purchases save lives, research shows
Malhotra, Michael Luca and Christopher Poliquin authored a study which found that handgun waiting periods reduces gun homicides by 17% and gun suicides by 10%.
[…]
Expanding the waiting period policy to all other US states would prevent an additional 910 gun homicides per year without imposing any restrictions on who can own a gun.
Waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%
A bold claim. Does their methodology really support it?
the model for gun homicides omits three state-years, and the model for non-gun homicides omits two state years because the death count was zero
We’re done. I’m not not going to do a full fisk on a study where they admit they tossed valid data that didn’t support their conclusions. You don’t omit data because the number is zero. You count the zero. Deliberately omitting zero when computing an “average” will yield a higher average.
1+1+1+1=4. 4/4=1.
0+1+1+1=3 3/4=0.75.
Oh, heck. Let’s look at some other stuff. For instance, they found that firearm waiting periods reduced nonfirearm homicides and suicides (Insignificant, they say, but that they found a definite effect at all should have prompted them to examine it for cause). How, pray tell?
What they also didn’t address is how waiting periods could have such a dramatic effect when roughly 93% of firearms used in murders are obtained through channels which bypass background checks and waiting periods: theft, black market, straw purchases, friends & family, and even “found it at the scene of my crime” (seriously; that’s a fairly common answer in the inmate surveys).
According to the FBI, 10,982 people were murder with firearms in 2017 The CDC says 14,542. If only 7% percent of those murders were committed with firearms subject to checks or waiting periods, we have a possible 769 to 1018 victims who might have benefited from waiting periods. But only if they were killed with firearms obtained no more than three days prior to the murder. But we’ll work with it. Let’s pretend we could have saved 17% as our researchers claim.
That gives us a range of 131 to 173 lives which might’ve been saved. Not the 910 claimed. They’re only off by a factor of 5.26 to 6.95. Truly though, it’s worse than that. 16 states (and DC) have waiting periods. I’d have to sort murders by state to find the fewer who might have benefited.
Hint to researchers using models: If your model doesn’t match reality, change the model, not reality.
[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)
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)
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.
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.
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…
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)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
