Paul Auster purveys the notion that the Black Panthers originated the idea of an individual right to bear arms.

This is from a Guardian interview with Paul Auster, the novelist, who has a new, nonfiction book called “Bloodbath Nation.”

In the book you say the second amendment, framing the individual’s right to bear arms, was largely ignored until just a few decades ago, when it began to be seen as a fundamental text about what it means to be an American. Why did this happen?

Because of the 1960s – the assassinations and the chaos. People were frightened. And also because of the Black Panthers, who were obviously not white conservatives, but they were the group who originally set forth the argument that gun ownership is a right and that it’s for self-defence. It is hugely ironic: the Panthers were wiped out but their ideas stuck and were adopted by the white right wing. Now, for many, the second amendment has an almost religious component to it. The right to own a gun is seen as a kind of holy grail.

Why shouldn’t individual rights have “an almost religious component”? That’s the way it looks in the Declaration of Independence.

The Guardian also has an excerpt from the book: “Paul Auster: ‘The gun that killed my grandfather was the same gun that ruined my father’s life'” (“In this extract from his new book, Bloodbath Nation, the novelist details the chilling murder his family hid for five decades – and why fixing the US’s deadly relationship with firearms will take gut-wrenching honesty”).

It’s interesting that Auster is writing about death by gunshot when it was so recently — just last year — that his 10-month-old granddaughter died from drugs and his 44-year-old son was arrested for that death and then died from a drug overdose.

And it’s interesting that he disparages the religion-like attitude toward rights, when “He has described right-wing Republicans as ‘jihadists.'” That blithe injection of religion appears in the above-linked Wikipedia bio. And it makes me wonder, given the quote at the top of this post, if he’d call the Black Panthers “jihadists.”

But he’s a novelist. I don’t expect a novelist to be consistent. I expect a novelist to write aesthetically appealing sentences and paragraphs that channel and manipulate emotion across an exciting narrative arc.

January 15

1777 – During the Revolutionary War, New Connecticut (present-day Vermont) declares its independence from Great Britain

1782 – Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris recommends to Congress the establishment of a national mint and decimal coinage.

1815 – During the War of 1812, the frigate USS President, commanded by Commodore Stephen Decatur, is captured by a squadron of four British frigates while attempting to break out of their blockade of New York Harbor

1889 – The Coca-Cola Company, then known as the Pemberton Medicine Company, is incorporated in Atlanta.

1892 – James Naismith publishes the rules of the game of Basketball.

1910 – Construction of the Buffalo Bill Dam on the Shoshone river near Cody, Wyoming is completed which  at the time, was the highest dam in the world at 325 ft.

1919 – A wave of molasses released from an exploding storage tank sweeps through Boston, Massachusetts, killing 21 people and injuring 150.

1943 – The Pentagon is dedicated in Arlington, Virginia.

1967 – The first Super Bowl is played in Los Angeles. The Green Bay Packers defeat the Kansas City Chiefs 35–10.

1973 – Citing progress in peace negotiations, President Richard Nixon announces the suspension of offensive action in North Vietnam.

1976 – Sara Jane Moore is sentenced to life in prison, which by federal law means 30 years and then a mandatory parole, for the attempted assassination of President Gerald Ford

1991 – The United Nations deadline for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from occupied Kuwait expires

2009 – US Airways Flight 1549,  an Airbus A320, on a flight from New York City’s LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina, ditches safely in the Hudson River after the plane collides with birds less than two minutes after take off, with all 155 passengers and crew aboard surviving.

Former Uvalde Police Chief: I Left the Gunman Unhindered to Continue Killing the Children He Held Hostage, So I Could “Evacuate” The Children Who Were In No Danger Whatsoever

The Uvalde police chief admitted he chose to leave the kids trapped with the gunman, even after hearing “a lot” of shots.

The Texas police chief blamed for the disastrous response to the Uvalde school shooting admitted making the “horrible” call not to rescue kids trapped with the gunman — even after hearing “a lot” of shots and the killer reloading.Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, who was later fired as Uvalde schools’ top cop, made the astonishing admission in his only briefing with investigators — a day after 19 kids and two teachers were slaughtered at Robb Elementary.

He smiled and made jokes during the nearly one-hour interview obtained by CNN, defending his decision to evacuate the rest of the school rather than those trapped with 18-year-old mass shooter Salvador Ramos.

He detailed being one of the first to arrive at the school, hearing too many gunshots to count.

CNN obtained the video of since-fired Uvalde schools police chief Pedro Arredondo speaking to investigators a day after 21 were killed.

“When I opened the [school] door, I saw the smoke,” he recalled, saying “shots started firing” again as he and a colleague started nearing the classroom where Ramos was holed up with kids and teachers.

“Obviously, I backed off and started taking cover,” the lead officer said, which CNN noted was in clear defiance of training that insists officers risk their own lives to “neutralize” active shooters.

“Obviously.”

He backed off even after hearing gunman Salvador Ramos shooting and reloading his weapon.”I know there’s probably victims in there and with the shots I heard, I know there’s probably somebody who’s going to be deceased,” he acknowledged of the room he backed away from.

But he felt the “priority” was the “preservation of life” of those not under the “immediate threat.”

Like himself, for example.

“Once I realized that was going on, my first thought is that we need to vacate” the rest of the school, he said, telling arriving officers that “we’re taking [other] kids out first.””I know this is horrible,” he said — claiming it was what “our training tells us to do,” seemingly contradicting the actual guidance.

Focusing on evacuating the children who were in no danger whatsoever just happened to also keep Arredondo and the other filthy cowards who gladly followed him out of danger as well.

But I’m sure that’s just one of those coincidences. I’m sure that never, ever occurred to them.

Backlash against weapons ban grows
Jersey County sheriff latest to balk at enforcement

JERSEYVILLE – Jersey County has joined a list of about 80 Illinois counties where sheriff’s and other law enforcement officials have said they will not enforce provisions of the state’s new weapons ban.

On Thursday afternoon newly-elected Jersey County Sheriff Nicholas Manns posted a letter on the department’s Facebook page detailing why he and Jersey County State’s Attorney Ben Goetten will not be participating in the enforcement of HB 5471.

The law bans the sale and possession of “assault weapons” and accessories such as large-capacity magazines, as well as .50 caliber rifles and ammunition. The banned weapons include some specifically names, and others by technical definitions.

However, it grandfathers in weapons that are registered with the Illinois State Police.

Mann said he would be using “lawful discretion” in enforcing the new law.

Continue reading “”

SAF Rips ATF’s Byzantine Pistol Brace Rule, Vows to Continue Its Lawsuit

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols.

While the definition of a rifle in federal law should be clear, noted attorney Chad Flores, who is representing SAF in a federal lawsuit filed two years ago that was stayed by the court in anticipation of this new rule, it is clear the Biden administration’s new definition of a rifle ignores tradition. SAF sued ATF and the U.S. Attorney General in 2021 in a case known as SAF et. al. v. BATFE, et. al.

SAF is joined in that case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

According to Flores’ analysis of the 291-page Final Rule, the definition of a “rifle” now turns on a bewildering six-factor test. This new definition can be controlled not by the firearm’s objective characteristics, but instead by what ATF agents in D.C. think of a manufacturer’s marketing materials or the firearm’s “likely use.”  The new rule itself is forced to admit its dramatic result: Under this new definitional regime, “a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles.’” 

“The Biden administration’s new rifle definition overrides the true wish of Congress, to upend the reasonable expectations of stabilizing brace users and makers nationwide,” Flores said.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted the foundation’s 2021 lawsuit raised critical points about what has now been adopted by ATF.

“When we started this process,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipated where the agency’s efforts would lead. With our co-plaintiffs, we will continue to challenge this new arm brace rule.”

Murphy Introduces Bill to Protect 2nd Amendment Rights for Military Families

January 13, 2023

Press Release

Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. (NC-03) introduced legislation to protect military families’ constitutional rights. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act (H.R. 341) guarantees Second Amendment rights to the spouse of a service member. This is the first piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Murphy in the 118th Congress.

“When I was elected to Congress, I made a promise to protect my constituents’ constitutional rights and support our service members and their families. This legislation does both,” said Rep. Murphy. “Far too often, military families are forgotten when Congress addresses issues that impact our warfighters. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act goes a long way in ensuring the spouses of our service members are afforded the same constitutional rights as those in uniform. I am proud to always support our outstanding military families and am hopeful this essential piece of legislation will finally see the light of day in a Republican majority.”

Summary of H.R. 341

Under current law, active-duty service members of the United States Armed Forces may purchase firearms at their assigned duty station with proper documentation. However, their spouses are not granted this same constitutional right.

This bill would amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that a member of the Armed Forces and the spouse of that member shall have the same rights regarding the receipt of firearms at the location of any duty station of the member.

The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act was previously introduced in the 117th Congress by Congressman Murphy.

This bill is cosponsored by Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Mike Kelly, Byron Donalds, John Rutherford, Rick Crawford, Michael Cloud, Elise Stefanik, Paul Gosar, Dusty Johnson, Ashley Hinson, Scott Franklin, and Randy Weber.

Gun-rights group to appeal federal judge’s ruling upholding RI’s 10-round magazine limit

PROVIDENCE — A group of gun-rights advocates has filed notice they will appeal a federal judge’s decision here upholding Rhode Island’s new ban on gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Michael A. Kelly, a lawyer representing the group, told The Journal on Friday that they hope to argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that a so-called high-capacity gun magazine is part of a firearm and therefore can’t be regulated as the law does.

Last month, U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused to grant a request by a Chepachet gun store and several Rhode Island gun owners for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which makes possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds a felony.

McConnell found that the plaintiffs, Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply, along with three Rhode Island residents — Mary Brimer, James Grundy and Jonathan Hirons — and a Newport homeowner who lives in Florida, Jeffrey Goyette, had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law were allowed to take effect, and furthermore, that allowing its enforcement was in the public’s interest.

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to “keep and bear arms,” McConnell acknowledged. But the plaintiffs, he said, had not demonstrated that the magazines represented “arms” as described in the Second Amendment. They hadn’t presented credible evidence establishing such a magazine as a weapon of self-defense.

He called the ban “a small but measured attempt to mitigate the potential loss of life by regulating an instrument associated with mass slaughter.”

The group of gun owners filed their notice of appeal Friday in U.S. District Court.

Kelly said he plans to hire as an appellate lawyer Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general. Clement successfully argued for gun-rights advocates in a case prompting the U.S. Supreme Court last year to strike down a New York handgun-licensing law that required those who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.

Delaware faces lawsuit over large capacity magazine ban

(The Center Square) — Delaware is facing a legal challenge over its ban on large capacity magazines from a group which claims it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

A lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of two gun owners, alleges the state’s new gun restrictions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing them from “exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to grant preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the state from enforcing the restrictions on large capacity magazines.

“Delaware arbitrarily labels standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds as “large capacity magazines” and bans them despite the fact that they, along with the firearms with which they are compatible, are in common use for lawful purposes,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a 25 page complaint. “There is no historical tradition of this sort of firearm regulation in the United States.”

Last June, Gov. John Carney signed a package of gun control measures that included a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons, an increase in the age to purchase most firearms from 18 to 21, strengthened background checks and limits on large capacity magazines. It also banned the use of devices that convert handguns into fully automatic weapons.

The proposals were pushed through the Democratic-controlled General Assembly in the wake of several mass shootings, including the massacre of 21 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

“We have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen around the country from happening here in Delaware,” Carney said in a statement at the time.

But Alan M. Gottlieb, the foundation’s executive vice president, said the large capacity magazine ban “literally criminalizes one of the most common and important means by which Delaware citizens can exercise their right of self-defense.” He said the restrictions “make self-defense a potential criminal act, and that must not be allowed to stand.”

The group cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case, which struck down a New York law requiring applicants to show “proper cause” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. The high court’s conservative majority affirmed the constitutional right to carry firearms in public places for self-defense.

Adam Kraut, the foundation’s executive director, said reduced police manpower in many communities means “there is no guarantee that emergency calls to law enforcement will bring anything resembling a swift response.”

“In the meantime, citizens must be able to rely on their fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and those rights must be protected,” he said.

For most of the rest of the 21st Century, today is January 1 on the Julian Calendar, so for those still using it…HAPPY NEW YEAR.

January 14

1539 – Spain annexes Cuba.

1639 – The “Fundamental Orders”, the first written constitution that created a government in the colonies, is adopted in Connecticut

1784 – The U.S. Senate ratifies the Treaty of Paris with Great Britain, officially ending the Revolutionary War.

1911 – Roald Amundsen’s South Pole expedition makes landfall on the eastern edge of the Ross Ice Shelf.

1943 – While President Roosevelt and PM Churchill begin the Casablanca Conference to discuss strategy, the Japanese concede defeat on Guadalcanal, and begin Operation Ke, the evacuation of their forces from the island

1950 – The first prototype of the MiG-17 makes its maiden flight.

1954 – The Hudson Motor Car Company merges with Nash-Kelvinator Corporation to form the American Motors Corporation.

1969 – An accidental explosion of a Zuni rocket detonating under a plane’s wing aboard the carrier USS Enterprise off Hawaii causes a fire, killing 28 crewmen and injuring  314 more.

1973 – Elvis Presley’s concert Aloha from Hawaii is broadcast live via satellite, and sets the record as the most watched broadcast by an individual entertainer in television history.

2010 – Yemen declares an open war against the terrorist group al-Qaeda.

Post image

Just like what happened back in the 90s when some shotguns were redefined as ‘destructive devices’. A tax free amnesty.
This will have suits filed against it, and what with the Bruen ruling’s “Text-History-Tradition” standard (find me any law, state, or federal that required tax, or registration of a firearm from 1869 and earlier, on back to the founding ) could see the downfall of the National Firearms Act.

This has not been published in the Federal Register yet

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles

Today, the Department of Justice announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly referred to as a short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles, including the National Firearms Act (NFA). In April 2021, at an event with President Biden, the Attorney General directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to address the issue of stabilizing braces.

“Keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements. Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”

“This rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago. In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns. The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, like a pistol,” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. “But certain so-called stabilizing braces are designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way under the statute.”

Since the 1930s, the NFA has imposed requirements on short-barreled rifles because they are more easily concealable than long-barreled rifles but have more destructive power than traditional handguns. Beyond background checks and serial numbers, those heightened requirements include taxation and registration requirements that include background checks for all transfers including private transfers. Often, when pistols are converted to rifles by the use of a stabilizing brace covered by the rule, they have barrels less than 16 inches in length and must comply with the same heightened requirements that apply to short-barreled rifles under the NFA.

The rule goes into effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register. The rule allows for a 120-day period for manufacturers, dealers, and individuals to register tax-free any existing NFA short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. Other options including removing the stabilizing brace to return the firearm to a pistol or surrendering covered short-barreled rifles to ATF. Nothing in this rule bans stabilizing braces or the use of stabilizing braces on pistols.

On June 7, 2021, the Department of Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and during the 90-day open comment period, the ATF received more than 237,000 comments.

The final rule, as submitted to the Federal Register, can be viewed here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

DID GUN CONTROL JUST ADMIT FIREARM MANUFACTURING IS A NET POSITIVE FOR COMMUNITIES?

A recent column in The Atlantic on the decline and despair of New Haven, Conn., caught my attention. It’s an area that many of those associated with the firearm industry are, at least, aware of. For me, it’s a little closer to home. It’s where my family’s roots run deep – both in the city and in the firearm industry.

When I read the author, Nicholas Dawidoff, lamented the decline of the city and pined for the days when Winchester Repeating Arms Company had a solid presence, it caught my eye. It was curious to me that a left-of-center publication made the tacit admission that a firearm manufacturer was a pillar that held the city up. When it was gone, the city fell into decay.

It was even more curious when The Trace, the mouthpiece of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety gun control group, echoed the author’s understated findings. Solid manufacturing jobs were good for New Haven. Dawidoff spoke glowingly of the immigrant and African American heritage that comprised the community and filled the factories. It was a working-class community. It had its struggles, but it was home and it was safe.

“Nobody locked their doors,” Dawidoff wrote.

Continue reading “”

Armed customers stop husband, wife trying to rob North Georgia gas station at gunpoint

GILMER COUNTY, Ga. — Police arrested a north Georgia couple they say tried to rob a gas station clerk before other customers intervened.

Ellijay police and Gilmer County deputies received a call Monday night about an attempted robbery at the Ideal Mart off Old Northcutt Road.

Police said Shawn Sutton, 39, pretended to be a customer, while his wife Melody Sutton, 39, waited outside in the car. Police said Shawn Sutton wrapped a pair of women’s underwear around his neck and face and pulled a gun on the store clerk demanding money.

This caught the attention of two customers who were inside the food mart. The first customer pulled his gun out to stop the robbery attempt while the second customer ran to his car to get his gun, according to police.

As Sutton tried to escape, police said a third customer who was armed came to help. The first customer noticed that Sutton was disarmed and told the other two customers not to shoot him. Police said all the customers had legal permits for their guns.

Police then arrived on the scene and tried to take Sutton into custody. However, officers said he became unruly and ignored their commands to stop. That is when one of the officers used their stun gun.

Sutton faces charges of armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Officers found Melody Sutton inside the car on the side of the store. She faces charges of armed robbery, intimidation and taking control of a substance.

Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act introduced

We’re dealing with a revolving door justice system in the United States. Progressive jurisdictions just bounce perpetrators and predators back and forth from the back of police cars, to holding cells, and all too often back onto the street. A bill just introduced in the House of Representatives aims to require prosecutors to prosecute certain crimes. Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis introduced H.R.27 – Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act on January 9, 2023.

This bill requires certain state and local prosecutors to report data on criminal referrals and outcomes of cases involving murder or non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, or any offense involving the illegal use or possession of a firearm.

The reporting requirement applies to state and local prosecutors in a jurisdiction with 380,000 or more persons that receives funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The report must contain data on

  • cases referred for prosecution,
  • cases declined for prosecution,
  • cases resulting in a plea agreement with the defendant,
  • cases initiated against defendants with previous arrests or convictions, and
  • defendants charged who were released or eligible for bail.

This measure might not solve all our problems in the criminal justice system, however it will help combat the practice of supporting prosecutors who vow to outside entities they’ll allow chaos to ensue in their jurisdictions. Accountability might be achieved.

The text of the bill indicates an extensive list of original cosponsors, and at this time there are 23 total.

Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mr. Reschenthaler, Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Issa, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Spartz, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. McClintock, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, and Mr. Moylan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

One of the features built into the bill is that once all the prosecutors and district attorneys report to the Attorney General, the Attorney General is required to create a report that’ll be publically available.

(3) SUBMISSION TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEES.—The Attorney General shall submit the information received under this subsection to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and shall publish such information on a publicly viewable website.

Having such information reported on will arm the population, as well as those who wish to truthfully report on such statistics, with information on potential bad actors. While some of these positions are elected and others appointed, having the data for all to see can affect both categories of persons. If the bill had provisions in it that would have a little teeth, that would be nice, but we’ll just have to deal with scrutiny via public opinion as a punitive measure.

This is the first bill of 2023 that I’m reporting on. There’s already a big pile that are worthy of bringing up. We’re dealing with a rather lame duck session. The House Speaker can mutter all he wants about promises kept, but we’d be fooling ourselves if we purported that any of these pro-liberty bills or pro commonsense ones will pass both chambers, and find their way to the Resolute Desk. Are we in a better position than we were a few weeks ago? Absolutely. But as far as legislation goes, we’re going to be best situated to hold the line. Given the make-up, we’ll have to be ready for further executive overreach.