BLUF
Hezbollah is crying out for peace because it does not have the upper hand. It is calling for a ceasefire because it is weak, and needs time to gather its strength

Hezbollah Wants a Ceasefire Now. Here’s Why Israel Shouldn’t Give Them One.

Ceasefire now? As much as Kamala Harris wants one and would capitalize upon one if it did materialize, the answer must be a firm no.

After exploding pagers and a series of carefully targeted Israeli airstrikes have completely decimated Hezbollah’s senior leadership, the jihad terror organization now wants a ceasefire with Israel. This will come as music to the ears of the Biden-Harris regime, which would like nothing better than an October peace agreement between Israel and one of the major players that are arrayed against it.

The Harris campaign could wave this agreement in the air every time someone pointed out that the world during the Trump years was a much more peaceful place than it is now, and use it going into the election as evidence of Kamala Harris’ superior negotiating skills. But for a number of important reasons, Israel should resist all pressure from Washington.

So far, the pressure for the moment is coming not from Washington, but from Hezbollah itself. CNN reported Tuesday that Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem, who is the highest-ranking official in the organization at the moment (after Israel took out longtime Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and several of his designated or potential successors) said, “We support the political efforts led by (Parliament Speaker Nabih) Berri under the banner of achieving a ceasefire. Once the ceasefire is firmly established and diplomacy can reach it, all other details will be discussed and decisions will be made collaboratively.”

Ceasefire! Diplomacy! Qassem knows how to push all the right buttons to get the U.S. State Department, the European Union, and the United Nations on his side, and even to shower billions upon his straitened organization. Kamala Harris has already sent $157 million to Lebanon, which means to Hezbollah.

Continue reading “”

AFTER NEGOTIATION WITH ANJRPC,
NJ ISSUES REVISED CARRY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

Joisey Goobermint; Loser O’ The Day

25-Yard Target Distance – Dropped!
Tactical Maneuvers – Dropped!
Timed Fire – Dropped!
Requalification Deadline – Extended!

September 17, 2023. After extensive discussions with ANJRPC, the State of New Jersey has issued revised carry training requirements addressing nearly all gun owner objections and concerns. The newly revised requirements eliminated any demonstration of tactical maneuvers, eliminated a demonstration of shooting proficiency at 25 yards, significantly extended the compliance date for current permit holders to requalify, and eliminated inappropriate content from the use of force instructional materials.

Click HERE,  HERE,  HERE and HERE to see the newly updated training requirements, which were negotiated by ANJRPC attorney Dan Schmutter, with input from attorney Evan Nappen.

Specifically, New Jersey eliminated any testing requirements for kneeling, one handed shooting, timed fire, and retention drills. Additionally, New Jersey has completely eliminated any demonstration of shooting proficiency at 25 yards, instead requiring shooting from 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Also, New Jersey has extended the deadline for current permit holders to requalify from October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023. New Jersey also eliminated from the “use of force” instructional materials content unrelated to right to carry, including provisions related to citizen’s arrest and use of handcuffs.

This development represents another extremely significant moment for New Jersey gun owners. The State of New Jersey has, for the second time this summer, explicitly taken steps to limit the harsh unintended consequences of erroneous rules for gun owners. It is a testimony to the newly found influence gun owners have attained in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, and ANJRPC is pleased to have been able to deliver this result.

If you want to contribute to the carry-killer lawsuit click here to make a donation.

If you are not already subscribed to these free email alerts, click here to sign up — there will be critical updates and alerts coming in the near future.

Gun “buyback” focused on so-called assault weapons is a huge flop

I’ve long believed that the primary benefit of gun “buybacks” are the positive headlines for politicians and anti-gun activists typically generated in the local press both before and after the compensated confiscation event takes place, and one recent campaign in the Michigan town of Ludington has done nothing to disabuse me of that idea.

As the Midland Daily News recently reported, an event specifically designed to get gun owners to hand over their modern sporting rifles in exchange for a $300 gift card led to “one less assault weapon” in the area, because only a single rifle was turned in. Despite that, the local paper still delivered glowing praise for the organizer of the failed “buyback”.

For a group of Mason County residents, the Uvalde tragedy was more than a time for thoughts and prayers, it was a call to action.

On Saturday, a group hosted an anonymous and voluntary assault-style weapon buyback program at the Ludington Police Department.

It was the first local event of its kind sponsored by the Starfish Buyback Program.

Eligible weapons brought to the police department could be exchanged for a $300 “supercenter” gift card.

Karen Reader, a member of the program’s task force, reported that one assault style-weapon was voluntarily exchanged during the event.

In an email, Reader stated, “We are looking at this from the standpoint, one less assault weapon in our community.”

It appears a fitting start for a program, which according to its mission, “is based on the belief that no matter how small or futile this action may appear, any effort to save lives matters.”

I’m glad they state that they’re doing this based on their “belief” rather than any supposed facts, because the idea that gun “buybacks” actually accomplish anything of substance is a leap of faith not backed by any evidence. In fact, one recent study found that violent crime actually increased, at least in the short term, after these kinds of compensated confiscation programs were put in place.

Controlling for “demographic, socioeconomic, and policy controls measured at the county and state levels” that might affect the gun crime and gun death rates no matter what was going on with buybacks, the researchers concluded that “with 95 percent confidence, we can rule out gun crime declines in the 12 months following a [buyback] of greater than 1.3 percent and gun crime declines of greater than 2.2 percent” more than a year after they happen.

They also found that in the immediate two months following a buyback, jurisdictions saw “an increase in incidents of firearm-related crime. The 7.7 percent increase in gun crime…is relatively modest, suggesting at most, two additional gun crimes.” They saw no corresponding increase in non-gun crimes in those two months. Breaking down the distinction between violent and nonviolent gun crimes, they found no evidence that buybacks lowered either in the short or the long run.

And that’s when more than one gun is turned over. I guess the good news here is that since only one gun was handed in they’re not likely to see any increase in violent crime either.

Thankfully this initiative isn’t taxpayer-funded, so its private donors who are wasting their money on this virtue signaling effort to go after modern sporting rifles. And since they only shelled out $300 the first time around, the Starfish Buyback Program has plenty of cash on hand for their next event in case anyone actually shows up.

I wouldn’t count on that happening, but maybe after another wasted weekend the folks behind the “buyback” will get the hint that their efforts at promoting public safety are better directed elsewhere. I’m sure there are some worthy non-profits who are doing valuable work in the area that doesn’t involve demonizing commonly-owned firearms or the people who own them, and sending some extra cash their way would do far more good than the compensate confiscation program ever could.

Thank God this hack never made it to a set on the Supreme Court. After he’s done being a bureaucrap, it’s likely he’ll slide off into some partnership deal at a D.C. or NYC law firm and disappear off the scene.

Attorney General Garland: Too early to call Nashville shooting a hate crime

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Tuesday that it’s too early for the Justice Department to say whether the shooting at a Christian school in Nashville should be considered a hate crime.

Mr. Garland said the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are looking at the incident in cooperation with local authorities.

“We are certainly working full-time with them to try to determine what the motive is, and motive determines whether it’s a hate crime,” the attorney general said in testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

His answers came in response to Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, who wanted to know if the Justice Department would open a hate crimes investigation even though the shooting suspect is dead.

Local authorities say Audrey Hale killed three adults and three children at The Covenant School, which is associated with the Presbyterian Church.

Authorities said the 28-year-old Hale was a former student and seemed to have targeted the school, though the children and adults killed were chosen randomly. Nashville’s police chief said the shooter was transgender.

Police shot and killed Hale roughly 14 minutes after the first 911 call about the incident.