Category Archives: gun control

authoritarian swine, Constitution, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

“Voluntary”

8 Comments

Orlando, Florida has a little problem with shootings lately. They have a bigger problem with the Constitution.

Checkpoints. Weapons screening. Metal detectors. On public streets.

Orlando to implement checkpoints downtown after 7 people injured in shooting
In light of the shooting, Dyer said the city will implement checkpoints on weekends. People who want to visit the area of Orange Avenue from Washington to Pine Streets will have to walk through one of six pedestrian checkpoints. This is an example of the city’s most recent controlled access map.

The city said people should expect to see more officers, K9s and metal detectors. There will also be a voluntary weapons screening at the checkpoints.

[…]

While the weapons screening is voluntary, Dyer said he thinks it will make a difference.

“I think if there are people that are carrying weapons and intending to come downtown, they will certainly think twice about that before they do so. I think it’s a deterrent for some people to have to go simply go through a checkpoint,” he said.

Mayor Buddy Dyer tries to rationalize these checkpoints as “voluntary,” but note that he repeatedly stresses that people “have to” go through them.

Where are your warrants, Buddy?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Or maybe we should look to the Florida constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized,

Possibly Dyer is confused enough to believe that public streets are some sort of sensitive area, rather like the secured portions of airports accessible through TSA checkpoints and metal detectors.

One word, Buddy: Bruen.

For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.

Mayor Dyer did not respond to a request for comment on the constitutional issues with his plan.

Anybody want to take a trip to Orlando to establish standing to sue?

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Action, gun control, gun grabbers, resistance, spirit of rebellion

Suddenly “Ghost Guns” Aren’t A Problem After All

That was quick.

Yesterday, I — with some glee — noted that an enterprising soul turned in 62 3D-printed “ghost guns” to a Houston “buyback.” At the time, it was being reported they went for $150 a pop.

The smart fella responsible says that he actually got just fifty bucks apiece. But they only cost him three dollar each to produce. Well worth the investment, at a $2,914 net.

No more.

Man claims to have sold dozens of ‘ghost guns’ at Houston gun buyback event
Houston leaders say they will no longer accept 3D-printed firearms, also known as ghost guns, at future gun buyback events after one man allegedly exchanged dozens of them over the weekend.

“We’re going to exclude those next time around,” said Mayor Sylvester Turner. “This is a program designed for people who want to voluntarily relinquish their guns.”

He made them look like idiots. But rather than discontinue a useless program that wastes taxpayer money, they just won’t accept “ghost guns” anymore.

Remember this next time some victim-disarmer whines about homemade guns being an existential threat to something or other.

They don’t really see them as much of a threat at all; not even worth what they’d pay for a broken, nonfunctional gun.

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Constitution, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Political philosophy, Politics, self defense, Violence-Enabling Victim Disarmers, Voting

Knock Knock, Avon Calling

4 Comments

It seems the Biden junta weaponized alphabet agencies are getting frisky. It seems they feel America is no longer a country ruled by laws but by dictatorial fiat, so they want to prove themselves as big a hero as Lila Morris the DC cop who beat an unconscious Roseanne Boyland to death and was then declared a “hero”. Hmph, must be handing that title out in crackerjacks now like they did Barry Sotero’s “Nobel Peace Prize”, snort, giggle, chuckle guffaw.

So if you ever wondered why states like Missouri passed a Second Amendment Preservation Act that prevents local law enforcement agencies from assisting federal agencies one only needs take a look at some recent activity. I can’t help it if a Senatorial candidate (Greitens) objects to the SAPA because it prevents local law enforcement being roped into the federal abuse of citizens. But hey, it took the guy five years to figure out being a Young Global leader in the WEF was a bad thing, so looking down the road may not be his strong suit.

For evidence I offer Delaware. Oh were you thinking the ATF didn’t have a firearm registry?

In Missouri, the useless biased hack known as Chris Wray decided he would “audit” the records of Missouri concealed carry holders. The Attorney General Eric Schmitt nicely told him to go pound sand. Delicious!! You’ll enjoy reading it.

https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2

Apparently they were going to try the Avon calling routine in Washington as well as Delaware.

A Washington state sheriff recently advised residents in his county that if agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) come to their homes without a search warrant asking to inspect their firearms, they can tell them to leave their property.

Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer said in a press statement on Friday that agents are “making surprise home visits of persons who have purchased two or more firearms at one time. To my knowledge, these ATF visits have not occurred in Washington State yet.”

Sheriff Songer told The Washington Times he became concerned about the Second Amendment rights of the residents of Klickitat County after viewing a doorbell video that showed a firearms owner who ATF agents coerced, without a warrant, to inspect his firearms.

And as our Bear recently pointed out, ATF COPYING A&D BOOKS

Damned right it’s illegal. The “no registry/database” was the “compromise” that FOPA gave us when we lost new machine guns.

Here’s the thing, the alphabet agencies think they are above the law. The law doesn’t apply to them. They enjoy inflicting fear and pain on innocent citizens but when it comes to them…..well then. I found this very enlightening. The behavior of the agent is despicable, he was terrorizing an innocent woman at home with her children. I believe it was the landlord that came over and thanked the police.

The video is 15:38 long, and probably worth watching every bit of it. The comments under the video are pretty interesting as well. They do go talk to the scared woman who called the police in the first place.

In my humble opinion this is how all these interactions should be handled. Poor lady, poor kids. But rockin’ awesome police officers standing up for the scared innocent citizens.

The alphabets, they do love their power.

With the betrayal of Joe Manchin, again, friends don’t ever vote Demoncrat, there are going to be some changes. Even if they say they’re moderate, or support ________ they will have to tow the Demoncrat party line. Which these days is somewhere around Stalin on the scale. But back to the changes, people making under $200,000 a year are going to have a tiny little increase in their taxes despite the liar in chief’s promises.

The energy and health care deal from Sens. Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer would raise taxes on millions of Americans earning less than $400,000 annually, Senate Republicans say, citing nonpartisan data.

The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation found that taxes would jump by $16.7 billion on American taxpayers making less than $200,000 in 2023 and raise another $14.1 billion on taxpayers who make between $200,000 and $500,000.

During the 10-year window, the average tax rate would go up for most income categories, the Senate GOP said, citing the data from the joint committee. And by 2031, new energy credits and subsidies would have people earning less than $400,000 pay as much as two-thirds of the additional tax revenue collected that year, the release said.

WOWZA! That’s a lot of money! Now regular citizens when their household spending increase due to a fraudulent communist being placed in office who issues a lot of illegal executive orders, well they have to trim the budget somewhere else. Like, less eating out, no movies, maybe even cut off the cable #FakeNews to make ends meet. So since we are now supporting millions of illegal aliens, with more pouring across the boarder daily I think the federal government needs to trim their burden on the taxpayer…now where oh where I wonder could we trim. Would we miss the alphabets if the went away? Would it be so bad if parents could go to school board meeting unmolested? If law abiding citizens could feel secure in their homes? Wouldn’t it be nice if someone at the door who said they were Avon calling, really was Avon? If Hunter Biden knew there wasn’t anyone covering for him and “the big guy” any longer? Hmm, maybe just leave law-enforcement to the local professional officers that answer to their citizens? I dunno, but it’s a thought. Don’t like that one? Ok, hows about every single politician or un-elected bureaucrat (CDC I’m looking at you) that pushes gun control no longer has tax payer funded security? They get to live like the little people they are trying to deprive of their most effective self-defense tool? Certainly that should save some money! And with the Biden junta spending more money in Ukraine, who will send it back to corrupt politicians, we need to start these effective cost cutting measures at once! No time to waste! Like yesterday! Follow me for more simple, practical budgeting tips…

But the upshot, say no to tyranny. Very catchy tune by the way!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, guns, Humor, Inspiration, resistance, spirit of rebellion

Entrepreneurship

1 Comment

Brilliant.

Big shout out to whoever it was that turned in 62 3D printed guns for $150 each at a Houston gun buy-back

A box of what authorities described as “ghost guns” were collected during the buy-back event, Saturday, July 30, 2022 at Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston.

Reminds me of the group that was taking batches of slam-fire shotguns to “buybacks,” and using the money raised to fund classes for new gun owners.

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Constitution, Courts, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Rights, SCOTUS

Gun Courts And Constitutionality

2 Comments

I ran across an opinion column advocating for a ban of semiautomatic weapons — all of them; not just “assault weapons” — that raised the usual bogus points: The Second Amendment is not an individual right, the National Guard is the militia, no defensive usefulness, and so on.

I could address so many points in that column, but one truly stands above the others.

Why all semi-automatic weapons must be banned on a national basis
“The Constitution expressly allows Congress the right and authority to dictate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. To make sure the will of a majority of U.S. citizens are implemented, Congress could remove from the jurisdiction of the federal courts the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a ban of semi-automatic weapons (similar to the removal of jurisdiction over habeas corpus during the Civil War).”

The author, Bob Reid, is, according to the mini-bio, an attorney who has practiced for 46 years, working on “both state and federal constitutional issues.” That makes his bizarre claim even more incomprehensible.

I have studied the Constitution for decades but that provision still eludes me.

Article III, Section 1.
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court…”
Section 2.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…” (emphasis added)

That would appear to assign jurisdiction over determinations of constitutionality to the courts. As for the suspension of habeas corpus as a pseudo-precedent for limiting the power of the Supreme Court, specifically delegated to the Courts by the Constitution…

Article I, Section 9
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public Safety may require it.” (emphasis added)

Is Reid seriously proposing that Congress declare war (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) on the people of the United States, as a means of suspending the Constitution?

And, frankly, citing Lincoln’s abuses of that suspension to imprison his judicial and press critics is bad enough; but the more recent suspension of habeas corpus used for the WW2 internment of thousands of Japanese-American families — including children — is hardly something I would use as justification for more constitutional abuses.

I wrote to Reid, to ask him to cite the constitutional provision which allows this proposed limitation on the Supreme Court. He surprised me by responding.

The Constitution lays out the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but relegates to Congress the unrestricted right to create the judiciary under the Supreme Court, which it has done by creating District Courts and Courts of Appeal. Under this power, Congress can clearly dictate what kind of cases these lower courts can consider (and has exercised this power in the past). If the lower courts are not granted jurisdiction over certain subject matters, and the issue is not part of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, the matter could not make its way to the Supreme Court.

He completely ignores the Article III assignment of jurisdiction for all federal courts, Supreme and inferior, and pretends to find it in the power to institute lower courts. I believe Mr. Reid, apparently primarily a tax attorney, is confusing Article I Tribunals with Article III Courts, and forgetting that tribunals are still “inferior to the supreme Court, just as Article III courts are “such inferior Courts.”

Tribunals are specialized “courts” that Congress can — and has — created for special limited purposes, “administrative courts” such as “tax court.” They are limited in their scope and power compared to Article III Courts.

In theory, Congress could create an ATF “gun court” tribunal responsible for ruling on GCA and NFA charges. But that tribunal — once again — is still “inferior to the Supreme Court” and its rulings would still be subject to Supreme Court review. That means The Supreme Court can still determine whether the tribunal’s acts, and the laws it enforces, are constitutional.

I hope Reid is better at tax law than he is at constitutional law.

He did have one other innovation for his ban; one that avoids the need for a few million door-kicking confiscators (and body bags for them).

These prohibitions should be coupled with a national buy-back program of semi-automatic weapons, but the refusal to sell these weapons or magazines to the government would not itself be a crime. Rather, if a crime is committed using a prohibited weapon or magazine, the owner or immediate seller of such a weapon or magazine would be equally liable for any crime committed with such weapon or magazine, regardless of who pulled the trigger.

So it’s a not a ban. But the criminal use of a semiauto would be a crime.

Hint, Mr.Reid. It already is.

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
"News Media", authoritarian swine, Bump-Fire, gun control, guns, Law, Media, So Much Stupid!

“Soviet Levels Of Propaganda”

2 Comments

Welcome to the party, pal.

Biden Administration Accused of Gaslighting Nation with ‘Soviet Level Propaganda’ After Attempting to Redefine Recession
The White House is being accused of gaslighting the American people with “Soviet levels of propaganda” as Biden officials attempt to change the definition of recession amid economic data that shows the United States is entering into a recession.

A recession is traditionally defined as two consecutive quarters of economic decline.

Who cares what traditional definitions are when you’re a statist thug grabbing more power? This may be new to The Georgia Star News, but it’s business as usual for gun owners.

Open-bolt semiautomatics became machineguns, except when they didn’t.

Fingers became triggers and bump-stocks became machineguns. Hell’s bells, they even redefined “volitional” (not to mention magically finding the very word in the law that doesn’t actually include it).

Rubber bands may or may not be machineguns; they’ll know it when they see it.

Braces were braces, until they became stocks and pistols became rifles, and paper weights became firearms.

Hey, remember when the ATF also decided that airsoft guns are machineguns, too? Honestly, what isn’t a machinegun anymore? Well, shoestrings for now; although they were, until the ATF revoked that determination after a few years of ridicule.

Wall hooks are machineguns. And pictures.

That’s not even a complete listing. The ATF — unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats — routinely reinterpret/redefine/just-plain-“find” laws every time somebody invents something that the elected legislators didn’t think of: orthogonal rifling, slide/frame semiautos, and more.

A federal judge decided magazines are firearms.

Some of us, who bothered to notice, have been warning for years of the dangers of unelected bureaucrats changing definitions to suit themselves and enslave Americans.

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
"News Media", gun control, gun grabbers, Law, So Much Stupid!

Idiots All Around?

1 Comment

The latest Dimwit attempt to pass a federal “assault weapon” ban just passed in committee. And none of the swamp critters seem to know what’s in it, if this article is to be believed.

‘That’s The Point’: Rep. Nadler Admits Bill Will Confiscate Guns In ‘Common Use’
Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop asked House Democrats if they dispute the fact that the proposed legislation H.R. 1808, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” bans firearms in “common use” throughout the country.

“Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Bishop asked.

“That’s the point of the bill,” Nadler replied.

If banning these common firearms is the point, someone seriously screwed up. As introduced, HR 1808 — not yet amended — doesn’t ban any existing firearm.

“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021.

It bans transfers and importation of future firearms and magazines. But it — semi-wisely — doesn’t touch existing items. The only mention of confiscation or seizure is (“d) Seizure And Forfeiture Of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices;” again, that’s new “high capacity” magazines.

Or possibly the congresscritters do understand this, and it’s only the Daily Caller that doesn’t grasp the difference between a future “ban” and “confiscate.”

Hint: One would merely piss off a lot of people, while the other would get a lot of cops killed. I think even some Dims get that, which is why mandated confiscation, seizure, or surrender of arms is nowhere in the bill. Yet.

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Courts, gun control, Law, Rights, Violence-Enabling Victim Disarmers

Prevailing Tyrants

3 Comments

If you are a gun owner in California, get out.

David Codrea pointed out something very interesting in California’s SB 1327. This is the new law allowing private parties to sue gun dealers and manufacturers.

This bill would create a private right of action for any person against any person who, within this state, (1) manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, or causes to be distributed or transported or imported into the state, keeps for sale or offers or exposes for sale, or gives or lends any firearm lacking a serial number required by law, assault weapon, or .50 BMG rifle; (2) purchases, sells, offers to sell, or transfers ownership of any firearm precursor part that is not a federally regulated firearm precursor part; or (3) is a licensed firearms dealer and sells, supplies, delivers, or gives possession or control of a firearm to any person under 21 years of age, all subject to certain exceptions, as specified. The bill would make these provisions inoperative upon invalidation of a specified law in Texas, and would repeal its provisions on January 1 of the following year.

I’m sure you knew about that, but bad as it looks, it’s far worse. We begin with this.

1021.11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.

That looks fairly standard: Loser pays winner’s legal expenses. But there’s a catch. If you challenge any state or local gun control law…

(e) Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief as described in subdivision (a), shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or any other provision of this chapter.

One more time: Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief from [any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms] shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or any other provision of this chapter.

They’ve preemptively declared themselves the winners. By law. In any challenge to any victim-disarmament law.

I’d be interested in hearing what more attorneys think. I’m fairly sure this violate the heck out of the First, Second, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.

Added: I realized that I was assuming readers would understand some details. That may not always be the case, so I’ll break it down for those who don’t make a hobby of law.

Under this sickening provision, you could still challenge a victim-disarmament law. But, and it’s a big but, you cannot ask the judge for “declaratory or injunctive relief.”

“Declaratory or injunctive relief” means you’re asking the judge to declare that the law is clearly wrong (declaratory), or that it’s likely the law is wrong and temporarily halts enforcement while the trial is underway (injunctive). If you are challenging a magazine ban, for instance, you would want “declaratory or injunctive relief” because you don’t want to have to destroys your magazines while you wait to see if you win your suit (prevail). Of course you want relief.

But now, if you ask for it, you automatically lose, and you’re automatically on the hook for the government’s legal expenses. If you want to win, you cannot ask for a hold on enforcement. You’ll have to get rid of your magazines or face arrest, and buy replacements after you win your case.

Maybe mags are no big deal to you. But what if you were challenging a law that affected something more expensive? Maybe California banned your entire collection of three thousand dollar rifles? Give ’em up, if you want even a chance of “prevailing.”

That’s a hell of an up-front “legal expense,” or as Mark Smith outs it, a “poll tax.”

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Law, Politics, Rights

Mid-Term Election Fraud: Another Data Point

1 Comment

A couple of months ago, I noted that, historically, Dimocrats tended to avoid victim-disarmament bills during election years. And yet, for some strange reason, they felt safe pushing their Federal Firearm Licensing Act, with its troubling definition of “dealer.”

Traditionally, Dims have avoided gun people control bills when elections are coming. It’s a campaign killer (right, Duke Nukem?). Certainly the money is on the same thing being the case this cycle.

But if you have no intention of allowing fair and honest elections (again), what’s the harm in pushing a bill to license gun owners register all firearms and owners via a “may issue” federal licensing system?

A fluke perhaps. But then we got hit with the BipartisanGand-Rape Safer Communities Act: Expanded preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, red flag laws, a very dangerous redefinition of domestic violence, and more.

Sure enough, Dim, Congress, and Presidential approval keep dropping like rocks as they push this.

Now Breitbart reports that the Dims are going to move on H.R.1808 – Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, It had been stalled in subcommittee for over a year, but suddenly with the mid-terms looming they decided that a new “assault weapon” ban is just the thing that some hundred million gun owners — and specifically the owners of 20 million “assault weapons” — inexplicably want.

Surely someone swimming in the swamp over there remembers what happened last time time they tried this. 1994: assault weapon shortly before mid-terms, Republicans took the House, Senate, and picked up ten state governor seats.

Is “gun control” really all that popular? A brand new poll, purportedly showing that things aren’t quite as bad for the Dims as everyone thinks, says otherwise.

Q15. What do you think is the MOST important problem facing the ccountry today?

Overall, just 10%. Even among Dimwitocrats, it’s only 17%. Does this sound like gun control is a winning mid-term strategy?

Or does it sound like the Dims don’t give a rat’s a** about what real, live voters want; that they know the elections are already in the bag? Some very peculiar primary outcomes suggest they do: In Georgia, one of the most unpopular men in the state — responsible for the illegal balloting in 2020 — handily and unexpectedly won his primary. And in Colorado, everyone is baffled that a director for Zuckerberg’s Dim-supporting election money machine — who polled dead last — magically won the SOS Republican primary.

If the conspiracy-minded want to view those as test runs for the mid-term fraud machine, I won’t argue with you. That the FFLA and BSCA came in on the heels of those weird primaries gives the idea some creedence, at least.

AWB of 2021 suddenly moving reinforces it.

Oh, well. Go buy your ARs and magazines while you can. I would, if I had the money.

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Culture, gun control, gun grabbers, hoplophobia, Humor, Law, So Much Stupid!, Violence-Enabling Victim Disarmers

Michael Moore’s XXVIII AMENDMENT

2 Comments

Michael Moore, apparently desperate for attention after a series of film flops — of which most I’d never even heard — is frantically screaming, Look at me! He has drafted, and allegedly sent to Congress, a 28th Amendment proposal to repeal and replace the Second Amendment.

When I saw this, I had thought I’d do a full fisking on it. But once I got to “any homemade equipment and machinery or a 3D printer that can make a gun or weapon that can take a human life,” I knew there was no point to it.

Any equipment and machinery that could be used to make anything that could used to kill.

In the letter I mention flintknapping, but really, the dumb SOB would be outlawing virtually any human technology. Baseball bats, electricity, cars, fertilizers and pesticides. Anything that can potentially kill.

I encourage Moore to adopt this “nothing that can kill” lifestyle immediately. Please.

Mr. Moore,

One of the most disturbing aspects of your proposed amendment is that you appear to have *attempted* to put a lot of thought into it. Attempted, but failed.

I could critique that amendment line by line, but once you outlawed rocks and flintknapping, there hardly seems to be much point to the exercise. I suspect you have never crafted a physical object in your life, other than PBJ sandwiches.

Granted, outlawing full-auto conversion devices for single-shot firearms was amusing.

I do wonder what odds you set for ratification of this proposal, in a nation where half the states have deliberately removed mandated licensing.

Will you volunteer to lead the stack of a confiscation team, to collect the millions of firearms no one is going to turn in voluntarily? You live in Michigan, I see, so you could volunteer to disarm Bloods and Crips in Detroit. Have fun with that since your amendment would disarm you and your police team members.

Watching you try that in southern Georgia might be even more amusing. You would keep gators, pigs, and coyotes fed for quite some time.

Oh, and a hint: You should review HELLER, MCDONALD, and NYSRPA v. Bruen. NO amendment “grants” a right to keep and bear arms. It is a preexisting fundamental and individual right.

I will be re-posting this email at the zelmanpartisans.com, where we do not limit comments to “paid subscribers;” feel free to reply there.

It seems unlikely that Moore will show up here. But if he does, have fun, and be as polite as he deserves.

 

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.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail