New Jersey’s already strict firearm laws got even tougher Tuesday as Gov. Phil Murphy signed four new gun control bills into law — including one designed to make personalized “smart guns” more easily available in the state.
The laws expand the list of crimes that bar someone from owning a gun in New Jersey, attempt to curtail gun trafficking from other states, and aim to prevent suicides.
The most notable measure (S101) focuses on “smart guns,” which can be fired only by their designated owners. They are designed to be safer than typical handguns, using fingerprint and other identification technology to prevent accidental shootings. For instance, they could keep children from firing their parents’ guns.
But officials say a 2002 New Jersey law has helped keep smart guns off the market. The law mandated that dealers in the Garden State could sell only smart guns once they became marketable anywhere in the country.
That, Murphy said, created a loophole that slowed the production of smart guns because it allowed the gun lobby to put an “enormous amount of pressure” manufacturers not to conduct research and development on the weapons.
The new law aims to close that loophole. It requires every gun retailer in the Garden State to sell at least one smart gun.
It also creates a commission that will approve and maintain a roster of smart guns that can be sold.
The law doesn’t kick in for retailers until the commission is formed and members vote on new rules for smart guns, according to the governor’s office. The commission has at least six months to be formed.
- Add convictions of crimes such as carjacking or making terroristic threats to the list of crimes that ban people from buying firearms in the state (S3897).
The Fresno Bee recently reported that Fresno County has the highest number of concealed carry licensees in the state, followed by Orange County. If “more guns equals more crime”, then more people carrying guns should lead to more crime as well, and yet both Fresno and Orange County have lower homicide rates than Los Angeles County, home to more than 10-million residents but just 424 concealed carry licensees.
Clueless local politicians, who having gone from ‘all in’ to ‘all out’ that fast, had to have been schooled that their state has a preemption statute, and they were walking into a legal mine field. Any half-way decent lawyer could have sued and won, leaving the city’s taxpayers on the hook . These idjits should be voted out and replaced before they succeed in coming up with some new idiocy.
The Des Moines City Council decided not to adopt any restrictions on firearm accessories Monday night after hearing stiff opposition from area gun owners and several council members.
After the council said it would consider gun-accessory restrictions, opposition mounted, including from a state lawmaker who said he would sponsor legislation next year to negate the local action.
On Monday, gun owners, about 10 of them, came to the City Council chambers to protest. But by then, five members of the seven-member council had sponsored a resolution to “delay” action on the gun-attachment restrictions.
The proposed ordinance would have banned the possession of high-capacity magazines and “trigger activators” that enable guns to fire at a higher rate.
Some council members wanted to do more than simply delay adoption of any limits.
“This is something the city of Des Moines should not even be tackling,” Ward 4 Councilman Joe Gatto said. “… This is a problem up at the Capitol and in our federal government, and until they change, we can’t (do anything). No matter what we would pass tonight, it would be changed in six months.”
The unanimous council decision Monday came six weeks after the council voted unanimously to look into the restrictions on large magazines and bump-stocks.
The council delayed two proposed ordinances, which were nearly identical, that would ban the possession of magazines equipped to hold more than 10 bullets. Owners of such magazines would have 90 days to destroy or dispose of them or take them out of the city.
“a liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been shot at yet.”
LaShawn Ford has served as an Illinois State Representative since 2007. Like his fellow Chicago Democrat General Assembly members, he has been a fairly consistent vote against gun rights since, well, forever.
But he recently appeared on radio station WLS-AM encouraging residents to arm themselves and get their carry licenses.
What caused Rep. Ford’s sudden, very public change when it comes to guns? Could it be the “come to Jesus” moment this past weekend outside his home that left one man dead? Or was it the fact that his car was riddled with gunfire during the incident?
WLS-AM has the story of what happened outside Ford’s home:
After another violent weekend that saw eight people killed and at least 32 others wounded, one lawmaker is taking action by encouraging his constituents to arm themselves.
Bullets from a shooting that left a 22-year-old dead in the Austin Neighborhood on the West Side Sunday also found State Rep. La Shawn Ford’s (D-Chicago) car. …
“I think about it all the time,” Ford said of the shootings that plague his community. “That’s why I’m working with a concealed carry instructor and we’re going to go through the neighborhood and we’re going to encourage people to get their concealed carry license because it makes no sense for people not to have the protections that they need.”
I was going to do an all-out analysis of this paper, since just from the press release I knew it had problems (cross-sectional analysis, without longitudinal; 18-21yo “children”), but this persuaded me to not waste that much time…..
So, starting with bad data, and excluding data that would invalidate their thesis, they did a cross-sectional comparison only, with no longitudinal analysis to find an effect of implementation of background check laws on in-state trends. A UC Davis study found no effect on homicide or suicide rates in the ten years after California’s passage of a universal background check law. More recently, California has seen an increase in firearms homicides……
Just another BS paper with a pre-set agenda, lacking in anything resembling science.
If you want to know how to beat gun control, look no further than New Zealand. Noncompliance with the new mandatory gun buyback law is kneecapping the government’s ability to enforce the law they wrote.
As of last week, only 700 weapons have been turned over to New Zealand’s government under new gun control laws written in haste in the wake of a mass shooting at Christchurch mosques. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns-with an unknown number subject to the new prohibition on semiautomatic firearms-in the country overall.
SHTFPlan mentioned the fact that Kiwis were disobeying the law, and things have still not changed. Gun owners in New Zealand have all but officially nullified the law by ignoring it…
New Zealand’s government also stepped up censorship and domestic surveillance after bloody attacks on two Christchurch mosques earlier this year, flinging itself into full-blown authoritarian tyranny. But that isn’t convincing the public that they need to obey the commands of the government. As it turns out, people want to be free and noncompliance is the way they are maintaining a shred of their liberty. Gun owners, at this point, will most likely never turn their now-banned weapons in either.
PHILADELPHIA, PA (JULY 12, 2019) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an important amicus brief in the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the criminal appeal of U.S.A. v. Raphael Hunt-Irving, which challenges the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession by even non-violent felons. The brief was authored by FPC attorney and Legal Fellow Joseph Greenlee, a Second Amendment expert and historian. A copy of the court filing can be accessed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.
Mr. Hunt-Irving had been entirely deprived of his Second Amendment rights based on a non-violent felony, which the government used in order to prosecute him for violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). As in other cases, FPC filed a brief in support of Mr. Hunt-Irving’s Second Amendment claims, using groundbreaking new research by Greenlee to show that the historical basis for bans on felons is the tradition of disarming actually dangerous people convicted of violent felony crimes, not just those the government broadly classifies as ‘felons’ in its statutes.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that in evaluating a Second Amendment challenge, a court must interpret the Amendment’s text in light of the history and tradition of the founding era,” explained Greenlee. “When the right was codified, only dangerous people had ever been deprived of their right to arms. The federal statute at issue in this case is therefore a violation of the Second Amendment’s protections by disarming non-violent people who have every right to keep and bear arms under every appropriate test and analysis.”
Since Mr. Hunt-Irving’s conviction was for a non-violent crime, he is distinct from those who have historically been barred from keeping arms. FPC’s brief traces the historical tradition of disarming dangerous persons from the year 602 through the enactment of 18 U.S.C. 922. The brief shows that there is no tradition of banning peaceable citizens from owning firearms, and that non-violent felons are ‘peaceable’ in the American and legal tradition. Thus, it argues, there is no historical justification for a ban on Mr. Hunt-Irving and he should retain his Second Amendment rights.
FPC and FPF were joined in the brief by Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF).
The Supreme Court could clarify the scope of the Second Amendment. The city would rather it didn’t.
Last January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City law that, among other restrictions, prohibited residents from taking their handguns outside the city. The Court was gearing up to rule on what would be the first Second Amendment case decided in a decade. But ever since, the city has been working feverishly to prevent the Court from hearing it. After all, the case would clarify the scope of the Second Amendment, and the gun-control crowd certainly doesn’t want that — at least not from the current Court.
At the core of New York’s shady actions are the legal concepts of “justiciability” and “mootness” — limits on the federal courts’ ability to hear cases. For a case to be justiciable, it must involve a “live” case or controversy. For example, if a state passed a law banning bumper stickers, and you sued, asking the Court to strike down the law as violating the First Amendment, the case would be moot if the state repealed its law before your case was heard.
But there are certain situations where the courts won’t consider a case moot. After all, a government could keep violating people’s civil rights and avoid having its laws overturned by simply repealing the law just to enact it again later.
This is precisely the type of situation New York City has manufactured: It’s backing off now, presumably planning to wait until the Supreme Court’s makeup is more favorable. Almost as soon as the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the city reversed course on a law it has spent decades defending tooth and nail and requested that the Court delay the case to allow the city time to remove the rule.
Originally, the city planned to have the police make a rule change — not even overturning the law. But the Court denied this request and, suspecting what the city was up to, several lawyers (including me) made sure, in amicus briefs, to address the city’s bad-faith attempt to escape the Court’s grasp.
At a time when many high-profile politicians are comfortable proposing laws that impose serious burdens on the right to keep and bear arms, including the mass confiscation of commonly owned firearms, it’s important to remember that those same firearms are regularly used by average Americans to defend their life, liberty, and property.
While some gun control advocates claim the Second Amendment is a dangerous historical relic, even going so far as to call for its repeal, they often overlook the fact that firearms are significantly more likely to be used for self-defense than in criminal activity.
In fact, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all national studies of defensive gun uses have found that firearms are used in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times every year in the United States.
Additionally, an independent analysis of the CDC’s own internal data on defensive gun uses indicates that firearms are used defensively about 1 million times a year, dwarfing the number of deaths and injuries attributable to their criminal use.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- If Andrew Cuomo is winning his fight to erase pro-Second Amendment activism, the tool that will ensure his success is going to be the financial blacklist. This is something a lot of people are missing with regards to his abusive actions towards the National Rifle Association. He made it clear that Second Amendment advocacy had “no place” in New York.
Let’s face it, anti-Second Amendment extremists have come up with an effective long-term strategy to address likely reverses that will come as President Trump’s judicial nominees are confirmed and rule on cases. It’s very simple: If pro-Second Amendment groups are denied access to financial services, they are toast. Forget being able to pay employees, own (or even rent) the office space they need to carry out that defense, or even pay the expenses necessary for that defense. This also goes beyond just pro-Second Amendment groups.
Already, we’re seeing a financial blacklist targeting FFLs and gun manufacturers from corporations. Salesforce has also targeted the Second Amendment, pulling the rug out from under users of its software unless they agree to the preferred policies of Dianne Feinstein, Cuomo, Charles Schumer, and Eric Swalwell. Those are policies that have not been passed into law, but instead come via edicts from the boardrooms of banks and insurance companies, who are often currying favor with those same officials.
This isn’t new. The fact is, Cuomo has been willing to wage a full-spectrum fight against our rights for decades. When there were pro-Second Amendment majorities in Congress, he quarterbacked abusive lawsuits by big-city mayors to get the gun bans and rationing that he wanted. In essence, he said in the 1990s, “To hell with democracy, we’ll use massive legal fees to force gun makers to choose between compliance with our agenda and staying solvent or bankruptcy for standing by the Second Amendment.”
Now, with his attacks on the National Rifle Association, it’s “To hell with the First Amendment, we’ll misuse financial and non-profit regulations to silence those who stand against our anti-Second Amendment agenda.” Here’s the thing, when you look at the facts, Cuomo’s “financial services” attack on the NRA is a politically motivated hit, and not real enforcement. The NRA is the victim of government abuse here.
The Second Amendment is so clear and simple that only liberals, aided by a half-wit liberal law school professor-tariat that is to real lawyering as Jerry Nadler is to Chippendales, could pretend to be confused about its meaning with a straight face.
“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.”
The whole “shall not be infringed” part is a real problem for the left, since collectivist Castro-channelers prefer that we Americans be defenseless serfs existing at the government’s (i.e., their) mercy when we should be armed, freedom-loving citizens with the personal firepower to veto their pinko utopian schemes. So, they fixate on the 2A’s passing reference to the militia, spinning a prefatory statement that recognizes that a militia is a good thing into a directive to cancel out the whole “citizens having guns” part of the Second Amendment.
In other words, to defeat its very purpose.
It’s a silly interpretation, and one that’s not even remotely asserted in good faith, but why not put aside all the constitutional arguments supporting our right to pack heat and just call their militia bluff? Maybe we should reinvigorate the concept of a militia in our great nation, if only to annoy liberals.
So, pick up your weapon and fall in. Let’s do this thing. America, let’s get our militia on.
What is the “militia” anyway? It’s not goofy dudes in camo playing army. It’s the American people. It was those farmers, blacksmiths and other assorted non-hipsters who the Brits tried to disarm and who got all shooty in response. Today, it’s us, you and me, regular citizens with military arms so they can cap criminals and tyrants like bosses just as Nature intended.
That “well-regulated” part is what the Second Amendment Truthers focus on, but their analysis here (as with everything) is all wrong. They think Congress can well-regulate the militia into oblivion, presuming to misuse the clause to regulate away any right of actual citizens to have firearms with the ultimate goal of a militia that can’t be militant. That violates the longstanding principle that you do not interpret Constitutional provisions in such a way as to negate them, but liberals hate the Bill of Rights so what do you expect?
Just for fun, let’s assume Congress can regulate the militia instead of the individual states outside of the situations set forth in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 (“To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”). If so, then Congress has already clearly chosen to regulate the militia by not really regulating it much at all. It has left it to us citizens to prepare ourselves for armed service, primarily by privately owning guns. And many of us are doing our duty, but tragically, there are millions of Americans who lack the effective modern weapons they need. This must change.
You see, that militia reference, when read as the liberals wish to read it, means Congress can regulate the militia to be more than it is now. You libs are always talking about the militia, so fine. Let’s make the militia a thing again.First, we need to start by re-well-regulating the militia’s exact composition. United States Code Title 10, § 246 defines the “militia” as follows: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Clearly, this definition is far too restrictive for 2019, as well as sexist and cis-normative. The modern militia should consist of all healthy, law-abiding American citizens (and those intending to become American citizens) between 17 and, say, 65. After all, back in the olden days, if you made it to 35 you were pretty crusty, practically Joe Biden-like.
Everybody. Basically, if you aren’t nuts, incapacitated, a crook or as old as a leading Democrat candidate, you’re in the militia. And that’s good, because a republic requires participation. For too long, we’ve outsourced the vital duties of individual citizens to our great first responders and organized military. No more. Time to step up, people.
Now, the militia is not the National Guard, which I’m a bit familiar with after serving in it for 23 years. People who know nothing often claim it is, but that’s silly. Review 10 USC § 246 above. The combined Army and Air Force Guard membership in 2019 is about 442,000 personnel. That’s about .001% of the ~329,000,000 million Americans, not even close to even the limited Section 246 membership. Moreover, the Guard is an organized reserve component of the United States that operates under state control except when mobilized – as an officer, I held both a federal commission and a state commission from California. My uniform read “U.S. ARMY.” I had the same training as active officer – in fact, like most of us, I spent years on active duty. We had guns (the same as the active Army’s) locked away in centralized locations. To join, you had to meet active Army or Air Force standards. It’s an awesome and vital force, but it is not a militia.
The idea of the militia is that it includes (almost) everybody, but everybody can’t join the military – only a fraction of our citizens can. The militia is different. It is about all of us doing our part personally for our nation, like answering a jury summons or paying taxes. Hey citizens, time to do your duty. Time to get well-regulated. And that starts with owning a weapon.
What kind of weapon? Well, the requirement for every citizen should be a firearm suited to combat – an actual assault rifle. The M16/M4 is the classic American military weapon, and every member of the militia should have one or an appropriate analogue. If you want to go with a 7.62 mm battle rifle instead of a 5.56 mm, that’s your prerogative. As a member of the modern militia, you’ll need to provide your own kit, and Kit Item No. 1 is some kind of rifle. You need to be able to defend yourself, your family, your community and your Constitution, whether with an AR, AK, FAL, SIG, HK or some other high-velocity acronym.
Training? We won’t need a huge amount, other than requiring citizens to maintain proficiency on their firearms. Every citizen can show up for a month at 18 years old and take a break from dope smoking and their crappy Taylor Swift music to learn some basics, including safe weapons-handling procedures. Also, it would be a good time to do some basic lifesaving first aid training – stop the bleeding, treating shock, CPR. That’s not just vital for when the lead flies– what if you come on a car wreck and a fellow citizen has face-dived through the windshield and is spurting from an artery? What do you do? Oh yeah, my militia training!
If it saves one life, right?
Once initial training is done, then citizens can be assigned to local militia units with an annual muster. Everyone gathers with their basic equipment, updates contact info, touches base with the leadership, and then goes home after a BBQ to regular life until being called up. Don’t think they could never be called up either – I spent three weeks with the Army on the streets of Los Angeles during the 1992 riots and another week after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. LA is shaking as we speak; we citizens need to be ready. How long is there going to be nonsense going down if everyone on the street is carrying a rifle? Not long.
It’s not too much to ask citizens to take personal responsibility for their own country, and the ultimate responsibility is to defend it. That’s why the Second Amendment’s militia reference, taken seriously, means not stripping Americans of their ability to defend their freedom but enhancing it.
After all, for the security of a free state, it’s necessary that every healthy, law-abiding American citizen owns a real combat rifle and is ready to deploy on a moment’s notice to protect our people and our Constitution.
The Second Amendment prevents the kind of nightmarish leftist hellscape that I describe in my action-packed yet highly amusing novels about the United States’ split into red and blue countries, People’s Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire. Hated by liberals and hailed by the sad Loser Boat crew from the failed Weekly Standard as “Appalling,” your right to be entertained shall not be infringed!
They basically flipped the bird at the gubbernor. Har-De-Har-Har.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Less than two hours after beginning a special session called in response to a mass shooting, Virginia lawmakers abruptly adjourned Tuesday without taking any action and postponed any movement on gun control until after the November election.
Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam called the Republican-led Legislature to the Capitol to address gun violence in the wake of the May 31 attack that killed a dozen people in Virginia Beach. The meeting got off to a chaotic start, with the Republican Senate majority leader averting a mutiny in the GOP caucus by publicly disavowing a gun-control bill he proposed only a day earlier.
Lawmakers were summoned to consider a package of eight gun-control measures put forward by Northam, who called for “votes and laws, not thoughts and prayers” in response to the Virginia Beach massacre.
House Speaker Kirk Cox said the session was premature because the shooting is still being investigated.
“The whole thing is just an election-year stunt,” Cox said.
Bloomie keeps spending, and still ending up short.
Noo Yawk Citty was probably advised that the court might take the gun rights ball, kick the door down and run away with it. So they’re cutting their losses.
New York City has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to drop its planned review of a gun-rights case, saying legal disputes over transporting handguns no longer exist due to changes in city and state law.
Earlier this year, in what would be its first gun-rights case in about a decade, the high court said it would hear a lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, a gun-rights group affiliated with the National Rifle Association.
The gun-rights group sued New York City and its police department, saying city rules that block some gun-permit holders from transporting handguns to second homes or ranges outside the city are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment. . . .
In a letter last week, New York City Assistant Corporation Counsel Richard Dearing told the Supreme Court’s clerk that there is no longer a ‘controversy because the new city regulation gives petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit.
No one would mistake the Supreme Court’s liberal justices for adherents to the concept of “originalism,” or the belief that one should consider—first and foremost—the Founders’ intent when ruling on constitutional issues. And yet their opinions in the Maryland “Peace Cross” case suggests that they, at least implicitly, support the idea.
In American Legion v. American Humanists Association, the court upheld Maryland’s Bladensburg Cross against the claim that its presence on public property violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Writing in dissent, no less a figure than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—the Notorious RBG and hero of the American Left—turned to the thought of the Founders in order to find the meaning of the establishment clause.
The original meaning that conscientious judges should seek is the meaning as it was understood by the public at large when the Constitution was ratified, and not the personal political views of selected Founders who, we should be reminded, were not sovereigns. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that no less a liberal giant than Ginsburg is willing to use at least some form of originalism in an effort to find the meaning of the Constitution.
Nor is this an isolated case. In the previous decade, when the court grappled with the meaning of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), both the conservative and liberal justices turned to the Founding generation to understand the meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms.” Justice Antonin Scalia and the conservative majority found that the weight of the historical evidence supported an individual right to keep and bear arms, while the liberal dissenters disputed this conclusion.
Notably, however, the “living Constitution”—which some liberal commentators treat as the common sense alternative to the much-derided originalist line of inquiry—made no appearance in Heller. Justice John Paul Stevens and the liberal dissenters never suggested the meaning of the Second Amendment should be interpreted in light of today’s values. They mounted no attack on originalism itself as a mode of interpretation. Instead they countered with their own originalist investigation, looking at the same evidence and holding that it supported the view that the Second Amendment aimed merely to protect the state militia.
As well they should. Constitutional originalism provides a nonpolitical standard for judges, one that permits them to think beyond their own policy preferences. Its liberal detractors may claim that it is just a clever disguise for their own political judging (“Originalism is a scam,” according to one recent ThinkProgress headline), but their argument is a weak one.
Anyone who studies the early history of the American Republic can see that originalism is not some novel invention of modern conservatives but a long-established and venerable approach to constitutional interpretation. In his celebrated opinions for the Supreme Court, John Marshall—the “Great Chief Justice”—sought the original meaning of the constitutional provisions on which he was called to rule. Certainly Marshall never suggested—unlike the modern purveyors of the “living Constitution”—that the meaning of constitutional provisions could change over time or might be imbued with new meaning by the jurists of the present generation.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Democratic Party is in a bind. This is the inference to be drawn after the first two recently aired Democratic Party Debates. And no less a source of Radical Left, Marxist hate-filled proselytizing and propaganda-filled garbage than The New York Times newspaper recognizes this indisputable fact; and, recognizing it, laments it, but for a very specific reason–one that may not be apparent to the casual reader.
In two recent stories—one, an Op-Ed, appearing in the Saturday, June 29, 2019 edition of the newspaper, and the other, a news story appearing on the front page of the Sunday, June 30, 2019 edition of the newspaper—two NY Times reporters in a news story, and one NY Times columnist in an Op-Ed, express concern, even consternation over the style, tone and mood of the two recent Democratic Party debates.
Several of the candidate hopefuls were falling all over themselves in their call for radical change for the Nation—calling for no less than a Marxist Revolution. Their exuberance was on clear display for all to see.
The fact of the matter is that for millions of Americans who tuned in to hear the recent Democratic Party “Debates” and who listened to the Radical Dead Souls, calling for nothing less than a Marxist Revolution, were less than enthralled with the message delivered. In fact, the majority of Americans were positively alarmed at the tone, mood, and bravado of these individuals who would have the audacity to serve as U.S. President, seemingly on behalf of a Nation and its citizenry whom they really couldn’t care less about, as they seek to destroy the one and to reduce the other to servitude, penury, and misery, serving their lives out in a Socialist Collectivist nightmare of reality.
They certainly didn’t restrain themselves in projecting the most outrageous social and political policy positions and in providing the American public with their prospects for our Country. In that, these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls, were clear and categorical about the agenda they are hell-bent on setting for the Nation: a transitional path forward to ultimate subsumption of our Country, our Nation, into a transnational, trans-global political, financial, economic, social, cultural, and legal system of governance. That would indeed mark the end of our rights and liberties; the end of the supremacy of our laws; an end to our history; an end to the very idea of a United States existing as a distinct Nation State as it is subordinated to and subsumed into a new transnational Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural construct.
As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over. There are an estimated 1.5 million guns—with an unknown number subject to the new prohibition on semiautomatic firearms—in the country overall.
Traditionally relaxed in its approach to firearms regulation, and enjoying a low crime rate, New Zealand has no firearms registration rule. That means authorities have no easy way of knowing what guns are in circulation or who owns them.
“These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence,” Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ admitted.
Twitter has blocked John Lott’s account because of a post about the New Zealand mosque killer, and won’t explain its decision (see pictures). If you have a Twitter account, please consider retweeting the Crime Prevention Research Center’s tweet about this.The original tweet was completely accurate, and is substantiated here. We have appealed, but we are not optimistic.
The general claim that most mass public shooters are right-wingers is also false (see here).
Fat chance. I doubt it could even survive a lawsuit as it affects intrastate law. Clay is merely doing standard operational campaign grandstanding to provide him with some political cover for the ’20 elections.
Democratic Congressman William Lacy Clay is introducing a gun control bill that aims to reduce gun violence in urban centers like his hometown of St. Louis.
Despite obstacles in the Republican-led Senate and White House, Clay believes his bill, the Local Public Health and Safety Protection Act, can make it out of Congress.
This bill, which is co-sponsored by Congresswoman Robin Kelly, requires states receiving Department of Justice public safety grants to pass their own gun control laws. Clay said that Missouri is among 43 states with pre-emption laws that prohibit cities from having gun laws stricter than their statewide laws.
Democratic Congressman William Lacy Clay is introducing a gun control bill that aims to reduce gun violence in urban centers like his hometown of St. Louis.
According to the Congressman, this bill would allow cities to pass the gun control crowd’s favorite gun control measures such as universal background checks, ammo restrictions, assault weapons bans, and bans on large-capacity magazines.
Thankfully, the partisan makeup of D.C. is such that radical gun control schemes like Clay’s bill will likely not make it to President Trump’s desk.
Almost two years later, I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around the carnage of the Las Vegas shooting. The whole thing was awful on so many levels, and yet there’s literally nothing that could have been done to prevent it.
All this time later, my heart still goes out to the wounded and the families of the slain. The scope of the massacre will, hopefully, always be mindboggling. I say hopefully because for it to not be mindboggling means such slaughter on that scale has come to be a common occurrence.
However, despite my sympathy, I can’t support nonsense like this.
The family of a former Bainbridge Island woman killed by a gunman raining down gunfire from a Las Vegas high-rise hotel suite filed a wrongful death lawsuit Tuesday against eight gun makers and three dealers arguing their weapons are designed in a way that could be easily modified to fire like automatic weapons.
The lawsuit, which targets Colt and seven other gun manufacturers, along with gun shops in Nevada and Utah, is the latest case to challenge a federal law shielding gun manufacturers from liability. It charges that gun makers marketed the ability of the AR-15-style weapons to be easily modified to mimic machine guns and fire continuously, violating both a state and federal ban on automatic weapons.
Here’s the problem with this. Nothing any gun manufacturer had advertised was illegal at the time it was advertised. Frankly, I don’t recall seeing any advertising that suggested using bump stocks, anyway.
If we’re going to follow this “logic,” then car manufacturers need to watch out. After all, they market cars capable of quick acceleration and high speeds. Wouldn’t they be responsible for auto accidents that result from activities like racing? Hell, deaths due to speeding in general?
Colt and the other gun manufacturers never said anything that a reasonable person could imply to mean, “Use this to kill dozens and dozens of people, injuring hundreds more.”
I’m sorry, but we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act for a reason. It’s to stop nonsense like this from happening.
This is not a widespread as he may think. For sure, some antifagoons clans are arming, but the vast majority of lib-proggies still consider guns as icky things they would deign to touch.
If antifa leaves the leftist metro/university areas where they are supported as sashay around ‘fly over country’, they’ll get a rude awakening that they made a strategic error.
If you’re reading this you’re likely a red-blooded American that cherishes your guns, and understands the role they play in securing the rest of your God-given rights. In fact that connection is so common many of us believe introducing someone to guns is a great way get them to appreciate a more expansive view of liberty, one that in particular includes respect for things like free speech, property rights, and capitalism.
On the other hand this includes an unspoken assumption that because someone is a leftist they don’t understand the role guns play in the political process and aren’t willing or able to use them to advance their left-wing ideas. Thusly many patriots have this idea that because soy-sodden bugmen often tweet variations of “guns are icky” that means our side has all the guns.
Well, unfortunately I’m here to tell you that isn’t true: the hard left knows full well the role guns play in the political process, and they’re currently arming up and training.
I’ve been keeping tabs on this trend, and the other day I ran across a rather alarming piece in the New Republic:
The great thing about actually reading lefty rags is lefties are happy to tell you what they’re really thinking, if you bother to listen
A new lawsuit against the manufacturers of guns used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting argues that AR-15-style rifles are illegal because they are compatible with bump stocks, which increase their rate of fire. The plaintiffs, parents of a woman who was murdered in the Las Vegas massacre, argue that bump stocks like the ones used in that attack convert semi-automatic rifles into illegal machine guns—a position that has been endorsed by the Trump administration. Therefore, they argue, AR-15s are themselves illegal, since the federal definition of machine guns includes firearms that “can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
That claim is important, since the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which generally shields gun makers from liability for crimes committed with their products, includes an exception for “an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.” And while the complaint (for reasons that will become clear) does not mention the Trump administration’s extralegal administrative ban on bump stocks, the logic of that policy reinforces the plaintiffs’ central argument.
Since 1986 federal law has banned the production and sale of new machine guns, including weapons that can be readily converted into machine guns and parts used for that purpose, for civilian use. During the Obama administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) concluded on several occasions that bump stocks, which facilitate a firing technique in which the rifle moves back and forth, repeatedly resetting the trigger and pushing it against the shooter’s stationary finger, do not turn rifles into machine guns.
The reason is clear. A rifle equipped with a bump stock does not automatically fire more than one shot for each function of the trigger. It fires one round each time the trigger is activated, and the process is not automatic, since the shooter has to maintain forward pressure on the weapon and keep his finger in position.
Notwithstanding that reality, Donald Trump, in response to the Las Vegas massacre, decided he could ban bump stocks by administrative fiat—the approach favored by the National Rifle Association. He instructed the Justice Department, which includes the ATF, to come up with a rationale, which required defining “function of the trigger” as “pull of the trigger,” defining a trigger pull so as to exclude what happens during bump firing, and treating the shooter as part of the rifle mechanism.
Washington State’s CCW permit procedure is one of the easiest I’ve had to ‘endure’. Waaaay back when Ich Bin was a private soldier and first stationed at Fort Lewis, I decided to get one. The folks at the Pierce County Sheriffs Office were quite helpful and the application form even had a attached post card so they could mail me that the permit was ready to pick up.
There are now more active concealed pistol licenses in Washington State than ever before, according to new data from the state Department of Licensing, showing more than 5,000 additional CPLs issued in June and more than 13,750 since Jan. 1, going along with the growing national trend toward more concealed carry.
There are now more than 622,000 CPL holders in the state, a new record.
And that apparently is just fine with the nation’s police chiefs, according to data from annual surveys conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. In the most recent survey results available, from the 2017 questionnaire, just over 85 percent of responding top cops answered affirmatively to the question, “Does your department support nationwide recognition of state issued concealed weapon permits?”
That same survey revealed that more than 88.5 percent of respondents think it’s okay for “any vetted citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense?”
NACOP survey results over the past few years have been pretty consistent. The 2017 effort was the 30th annual survey, and results from the 2018 survey are not yet posted on the group’s website.
At the end of May, there were 616,698 active licenses in Washington, and the monthly average is somewhere around 2,200-2,300.
Typical sweeping list of every gun-grabber’s fantasy
Gov. Ralph Northam on Wednesday rolled out his final list of gun control measures he wants legislators to take up next week during a special session of the General Assembly.
Democratdemoncrap, called the special session, beginning Tuesday, in the wake of the May 31 shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal building that left 12 dead. Many of the eight proposals on his list have come before the Republican-controlled General Assembly in the past, but have not made it far.
“Now is the time to act — Virginians deserve votes and laws, not thoughts and prayers,” Northam said in a statement. “I urge the members of the General Assembly to engage in a thorough, meaningful discussion about these proposed bills and to allow every member to cast their votes on the floor.”
Northam is proposing universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, bump stocks and silencers. He also wants to reinstate Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law, require lost and stolen firearms be reported to police within 24 hours and allow localities to enact firearm ordinances that are stricter than state law, such as regulating firearms in municipal buildings. He thinks the punishment for allowing a child access to loaded, unsecured firearms should be enhanced from a misdemeanor to a felony and the age of the children the law applies to should be raised from 14 to 18.
Northam is also interested in extreme risk protection orders, which allow a third party — in Virginia, officials said this would be a police officer or prosecutor — to petition a judge for a warrant to seize legally owned guns if someone is determined to be an immediate threat to themselves or others.
A proposal Northam hadn’t mentioned until Wednesday is to prohibit those subject to final protective orders from possessing firearms. Currently, Virginia law prohibits people subject to final protective orders for family abuse from possessing firearms.
None of the proposals have been filed yet as bills with complete language on the General Assembly’s website. Republicans have not released a list of proposals, but House Speaker Kirk Cox has said they plan to introduce legislation to impose tougher penalties — including mandatory minimums — against offenders. Northam has vowed not to sign any more mandatory minimum legislation for the remainder of his term.
After a Republican senator and Democratic delegate recently resigned from their posts to take jobs in the Northam administration, Republicans now hold a 20-19 majority in the Senate and a 51-48 majority in the House of Delegates.