Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Gun Owners of CA’s Founder STILL Raising the Left’s Blood Pressure – Yippee! BY L.A. PAREDES

It’s no surprise to us but Gun Owners of California’s late founder is still making the Left’s blood pressure rise. And boy, does this make us smile.

Long after he retired from the California State Senate, H.L. “Bill” Richardson continued to be a media favorite as the guy who would pull-no-punches and colorfully tell it like it is, whether it was about the 2nd Amendment, freedom or his love of America. And were he still with us today, we know damn well he’d stand proudly with the “domestic terrorists” – also known as concerned parents – who have had the courage to recently stand up to the jack-booted thuggery of our government and educational bureaucracy.

To see his name elevated by an East Coast Leftist as one of the chief architects of this current political movement thrills us at GOC to our core:

“One blueprint that conservative activists have adopted comes from the book “Confrontational Politics” by the late H.L Richardson, a former California state senator and gun-rights activist.” – Joseph D. Bastrimovich

True. The popular “Confrontational Politics” does provide a blueprint on how to engage effectively with the Left, and yes, it has been adopted by smart activists over the past 30 years.

But then the fiction is rolled out:

“They’ve [activists] brought scrutiny upon themselves for aggressive tactics, which include being deliberately disruptive, shouting down school board members and even threatening violence toward those they see as enemies. These have become commonly used tactics for other conservative groups.”

Aggressive tactics? Deliberately disruptive? Threatening violence? At this point, I’d ask if the guy had even read the book, but realistically it doesn’t matter because he proves the book’s point that “Dogs bark, jackasses bray, snakes wiggle and liberals lie, it’s their nature to do so.”  Let’s leave it at that.

Throughout Richardson’s career and beyond, he called the Left out at every opportunity. Why? Because letting them march ahead without a challenge is a sign of weakness – and the Left knows most resistance on the right is exactly that…weak. That’s why learning how to effectively confront is key. To the average citizen, confrontation is not perceived as a tactic, a method of achieving a given end. However, to the Leftist, it is. To quote from the book, “they view confrontation as a verbal game, a form of semantic warfare to achieve a specific end, a strategy of bluff and bluster, a tactic used to accomplish a political goal, a technique to put an opponent on the defensive.”

The bottom line is that confrontation makes many people uncomfortable because it invokes negative emotions and is perceived as “unsociable behavior.” This actually makes the average American vulnerable, and often the victim of their own decency.

Liberals attribute our civility as weakness and deem our opposition to their agenda as desperate.  They think we are buffoons, simpletons, adhering to ideas that are no longer relevant. Thus, understanding their verbal strategies is the first step in being able to combat them – and make no mistake about it – combat them we must. To do otherwise is to abdicate not only the field of American politics, but our homes, families and businesses as well.

For every individual who challenges their local school board or battles unconstitutional gun laws in front of an over-reaching city council – becoming proficient in confrontation is a wise tool to have in your belt. Nothing annoys a Leftist more than an effective conservative.

There’s simply no need to avoid conflict – especially if done well and with control. There’s no need to be nasty. Use perseverance and professionalism. To be effective, positive confrontation requires a positive attitude.

There are teachable moments every step of the way as we battle the evils of the world. We must learn to build alliances and collect residuals in any and all confrontations with the Left – even when facing temporary setbacks or losses. From each conflict something can and must be gained – experience, friendships, political skills, fundraising files, and an evaluation of talent. Understanding how this works will prevent any wilting from the hot pressure of politics. Besides, the Left getting their panties in a bunch because parents are justifiably getting loud these days just demonstrates what a bunch of whiny, insecure adolescents they are.

In closing, GOC sends a big THANK YOU to Joseph D. Bastrimovich of National Park New Jersey, not for his defamatory remarks (read them HERE) about concerned parents, but for providing a brand new forum for GOC to highlight the value of Confrontational Politics (to his credit, Bastrimovich did link to a superb article on Richardson’s passing.)  But to see what all the fuss is about, you can secure your own copy of Confrontational Politics at the GOC store HERE.

GOC is encouraged by a newly energized electorate and is pleased to announce that we will be re-launching our Confrontational Politics workshops. For more information, contact us at (916) 984-1400 or email at [email protected]

 

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Anti-hunting Activists Still Blame Hunters for Condor Deaths By Larry Keane

California Condor iStock-495123612
Anti-hunters continue blaming lead ammo for the deaths of California Condors IMG iStock-495123612

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- California banned the use of traditional ammunition statewide in 2019, but anti-hunting activists continue to blame traditional ammunition made with lead components for the deaths of the scavengers.

Mike Stake, a wildlife biologist with the Ventana Wildlife Society in California, told KCBX that of the 13 deaths of California condors in 2020, nine were attributed to lead poisoning. Anti-hunting activists have long blamed traditional ammunition for the condor deaths. They theorize that these scavengers would feed on animal carcasses or even gut piles left behind by hunters ingesting lead fragments from hunters’ ammunition as the source of lead poisoning.

That caused California lawmakers to pass a law in 2013 that began a phased traditional ammunition ban for all hunting in California. The ban was fully implemented statewide by July 1, 2019.

For two years, no hunters have been allowed to use anything but more expensive alternative ammunition. California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife reported 98.89% hunter compliance with the regulation. If hunters aren’t using traditional ammunition, how do anti-hunting activists still blame traditional ammunition for lead poisoning in California condors?

Are Hunters to Blame?

Ventana Wildlife Society didn’t study why condors are still getting sick from lead, despite it being banned for hunting. Instead, they speculate. Without proof, Stake told KCBX that hunters must be skirting the rules since ammunition is in high demand these days.

“But the law does permit the sale and purchase of lead ammunition because it’s still legal to use in target ranges where wildlife is not the target,” KCBX reported. That’s right. They are now saying condors must be consuming lead from hunters who break the law, even though California authorities say this isn’t the case, or condors are eating lead out of the berms and fields of gun ranges.

That’s a stretch unsupported by any science, but not one that anti-hunting and anti-gun activists haven’t already made. The original data upon which California based the law to ban traditional ammunition for hunting is suspect. Hunt for Truth Association pored over the reports submitted to California lawmakers and found those reports were deeply biased. The condor population did crash, but it wasn’t due to hunters using traditional ammunition.

A combination of habitat destruction and “use of DDT, other organochlorine pesticides, and certain rodenticides throughout the remaining condor habitat in Central and Southern California had serious and significant impacts on condor populations.”

The group’s research looked directly at data regarding condor consumption of lead. It found that it wasn’t as easy as singling out lead fragments from animal carcasses leftover by hunters.

Questioning Data

“While some researchers maintain that lead ammunition from gut piles or game carrion left in the field by hunters is the primary source of lead exposure to condors, there is compelling evidence of alternative sources of lead in the environment,” Hunt for Truth reported. “Such alternative sources of lead include paint chips from old buildings, legacy leaded gasoline in soils, mining wastes, old insecticides, and micro trash.”

Two condors that were studied were actually observed eating paint chips from a fire lookout tower. Those condors were later observed regurgitating those paint fragments to feed their chicks.

“Rarely, if ever, has an actual projectile fragment been found in the digestive tract of a California condor,” the report continued“However, objects that were thought to be projectile fragments were subsequently found to be pieces of gravel or a ‘woody’ substance, not from ammunition.”

Hunt for Truth didn’t pull punches on questioning the studies.

“Hunt for Truth has discovered that many of these researchers ‘cherry-picked’ this information, deleting it and often refusing to present the underlying information to scientific peer review, policymakers, and the public at large. This activity by the researchers calls their very claims and conclusions into serious question,” the group stated in the report. Information about condor deaths was intentionally suppressed by the Obama-era U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and not provided to California legislators when they were considering expanding the ban statewide because it did not support the narrative that hunters were to blame.

Still, falsely blaming hunters for using traditional ammunition two years after the ban was in effect even after California authorities conclude hunters are complying isn’t just bad form. It’s bad science. Making unsubstantiated claims based on hearsay is antithetical to setting science-based policies.

California hunters stopped using traditional ammunition two years ago. If condors are still getting sick from poisoning, it’s not because carcasses have been lying in the wild for over two years. Something else is going on and it’s time anti-hunting activists come clean on their agenda.


About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! California

Anti-Gun Researchers Want More Money For California Red Flag Law By Cam Edwards (& I am supposed to be surprised by this call for more $$$!?!)

AP Photo/Julio Cortez
California’s had a “red flag” gun seizure law on the books since 2016, but apparently it’s not being used often enough for gun control activists. The UC-Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, a state-funded anti-gun “research” center headed up by longtime gun control activist Dr. Garen Wintemute, is out with a new report calling on the state to increase funding for the implementation of Extreme Risk Protection Orders that allow the state to confiscate the firearms of anyone a judge deems to be a danger to themselves or others.

I wrote about the due process dangers and the lack of a mental health focus inherent in these red flag laws yesterday, so I won’t re-litigate those arguments here. I do find it interesting, however, that even in California these laws apparently aren’t that popular, and haven’t even been used in many counties. Wintemute and his colleagues chalk that up to a lack of information about red flag laws among law enforcement agencies and the general public, but I think they’re unfairly discounting the idea that in many counties, there’s not a lot of support for red flag gun confiscations.

In order to conduct their “research,” Wintemute and his colleagues conducted “semi-structured interviews” with ” 27 key informants, including judges, law enforcement officers, city and district attorneys, policy experts, and firearm violence researchers” to talk about how well (or not) red flag petitions are being implemented. No number crunching involved here, just subjective interviews with folks, the vast majority of whom have undoubtably already come to the conclusion that red flag laws are valuable and needed “gun safety” tools. In fact, the study authors admit as much:

Potential key informants were selected due to their experience with or demonstrated knowledge of GVROs (e.g., through published reports). They were identified through professional relationships with the authors, activity in the gun violence prevention community, public records indicating involvement in the service or disposition of GVROs, and by recommendation from other informants.

Was there a single stakeholder interviewed who has a knowledge of “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” but who thinks they’re a bad idea? Given the fact that (according to Wintemute) only 14 of California’s 58 counties had enforced a red flag gun seizure order between 2016 and 2020, it shouldn’t have been difficult to find a sheriff or D.A. with an opinion contrary to those writing the report. It sounds to me like these “researchers” simply weren’t interested in hearing another point of view. And why would they, if they already knew that the gist of the report was going to be “red flag laws are good, but here’s how they could be better”?

So the state-funded “research” center came to the completely unsurprising conclusion that more state funds are needed to improve how Gun Violence Restraining Orders are implemented. Any problems with the law (including the fact that in 50% of cases handled by one police officer, individuals refused to give up their guns) can be addressed by throwing money at it. Or rather, any problems that the gun control lobby and their political allies are willing to acknowledge can have more tax dollars thrown at it. Inherent defects like a lack of counsel for those who can’t afford to hire an attorney or a low legal standard for a finding of dangerousness, on the other hand, can be brushed aside and ignored completely.

If this sounds more like propaganda than research, I’m with you. Unfortunately, we can expect this same gun control advocacy disguised as objective science to soon be coming from our federal government, not just anti-gun academics in California, thanks to the CDC’s newfound interest in researching “gun violence.” Millions of dollars have already been appropriated to various academics around the country who’ll soon be issuing reports of their own that either lavish praise on gun control laws already in place in some states or warn of the dire consequences of not imposing those restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. It’s far more junk than science, and unfortunately its our tax dollars (well, more like our grandchildren’s tax dollars at this point, given how much we’re borrowing) that’s paying for it.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Some Folks who are NOT your Friends about The 2nd Amendment

Current List of Anti-Gun Businesses You Should Avoid Giving Your Money

gun coins nra-ila
Current List of Anti-Gun Businesses You Should Avoid Giving Your Money IMG NRA-ILA

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Do you watch movies at AMC Theaters? Was the film produced by Bad Robot?

Do you eat at Chipotle, Shake Shack, Panera, Burger King, or Subway, or have a meal delivered by Door Dash?

Do you wear clothes from Levi Strauss, the Gap, or Gucci?

Do you watch CNN, MTV, NBC, HBO, MSNBC, or Showtime?

Do you browse Tinder, Yelp, eBay, or Pinterest on a Microsoft computer with Comcast internet?

Do you shop at Costco?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you have financially supported companies that want to strip us of our God-given constitutional rights.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms maintains a list of anti-gun businesses, which is also known as the “Don’t feed them” list. To be added to the list, a company and/or their decision-makers have either instituted an anti-gun corporate policy or lobbied lawmakers to draft or support anti-gun legislation. In other words, they had to take action – anti-gun action – against the Second Amendment. None of the firms made the list by accident.

“We’re not calling for a boycott of these companies,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said last year when four more firms were added to the list. “But we are providing this information to American gun owners so they can make informed decisions about where to spend their hard-earned money without unknowingly supporting efforts to erode an important constitutional right.”

One of the beauties of the American Free-Market system is that it allows business leaders to run their company in any manner they choose, and the marketplace will then decide whether their decisions were prudent or ill-conceived.

Like Mr. Gottlieb, I don’t support boycotts as they’re a favored tactic of the gun prohibitionists. Nowadays, they seem ready to scream “BOYCOTT!” for even the most minor of reasons or for no reason at all. Still, I work hard for my money, so I would rather patronize a business that supports my constitutional rights – all of my constitutional rights. Therefore, I use the list to screen out those firms that don’t support me. That’s not a boycott. It’s being an informed consumer.

CCRKBA list of anti-gun businesses.
CCRKBA list of anti-gun businesses.

Some of the businesses won’t be missed. I’ve never needed a $1,350 Gucci man-purse, especially after they donated $500,000 to March for Our Lives. I don’t watch CNN or MSLSD, browse Tinder, eat at Burger King or subscribe to HBO, especially since the Sopranos ended.

Costco, on the other hand, will be difficult. I hope someone talks some sense into their CEO, Craig Jelinek. This gun owner already misses his great deals.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Fieldcraft Gun Info for Rookies

As old Alec has found out these Rules are ALWAYS the smart thing to follow!

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

I just feel sorry for the Victims Family myself

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Don’t let California persecute gun owners by Washington Examiner

The Democrats’ assault on the First Amendment has been so brazen lately that it’s often easy to forget that they have been waging an even longer and more concerted battle against the Second Amendment.

In states where Democrats hold complete control, such as California, they can be counted on to do whatever they can to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns — or at least to harass them to the point that it is as difficult as possible.

When they aren’t trying to ban the most popular rifles (even though they are almost never used in crimes), they are filing dubious lawsuits against gun manufacturers for consumers’ misuse of their products. When they aren’t devising cutesy ideas such as ammunition taxes, they are trying to pass rules under strange pretexts, such as environmental rules supposedly designed to protect animals from eating the lead in bullets, but are really just trying to make it impossible to use bullets.

Another such cute proposal has just been signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure, AB 173, will soon give researchers at the California Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of California-Davis access to all the information that the state collects about gun and ammunition purchasers , including personally identifying information, although this is supposedly not to be “transferred, revealed, and used for purposes other than research.”

Although the media try to tell a different story, Democrats’ obsession with identifying and tracking gun owners has been the single biggest obstacle to reforms that would help keep guns out of the wrong hands at the federal level. The best such proposal , which would have dramatically reduced the number of transactions lacking background checks, was rejected by the Obama administration after the Sandy Hook massacre because it deliberately avoided creating databases that could be used to track gun owners.

More to the point, California’s state government already has the bad habit of using the information it keeps on gun owners to hound them in a way other states do not. In 2013, the state began a very expensive program of doubtful effectiveness to seize guns from purchasers who subsequently were rendered ineligible — for example, due to a criminal conviction or even just a nasty divorce.

Earlier this month, California Rifle and Pistol Association Legislative Director Roy Griffith wrote to Newsom , asking him to veto the bill. He correctly argued that gun owners deserve privacy just as much as all other consumers, who are protected in California from the dissemination of their personal information by Proposition 24, passed in 2020.

“The identities and confidential personal information of individuals should only be provided by … state entities to law enforcement agencies when conducting an investigation that has a specific need for it,” writes Griffith. “No other entity, not even research institutions, has sufficient justification to have access to an individual’s private information.

If government workers leak private IRS data despite felony penalties, California gun owners’ private data will be leaked too. It is not a question of if, but of when. This will not only violate gun owners’ privacy, but it will also give criminals a nice list from which to work when looking for guns to steal.

Even before that inevitably happens, there is simply no reason to send the personal information of gun owners to anti-gun academics. The federal courts must step in to preserve Second Amendment rights in the states.

 

 

 

 

Categories
A Victory! Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

The View Doesn’t Appreciate a Right The NRA (Ahh See the tears, see the tears! Grumpy)

The View Doesn’t Appreciate a Right

 

Women, and especially black women, are increasingly buying firearms for self-defense. This reality did not sit well with the hosts of a somehow still-running daytime talk show.

Readers are likely aware of, if not familiar with “The View.” Sherri Shepherd is an actress and former co-host of “The View” who recently returned for a guest spot. Self-professed “big gun control person” Joy Behar set up a segment on the rise in gun ownership among black women, queuing up Shepherd to reveal that she is among the large number of black female new gun owners.

Shepherd shared with the audience that she, like millions of other Americans, recently became a first-time gun buyer. Shepherd said:

“During the quarantine, I felt really helpless, Joy, and we’re talking about depression, I felt [my son] Jeffrey would look at me like he was so scared. I get these little alerts in my neighborhood app about there’s going to be a march through the neighborhood and I started feeling like, ‘how am I supposed to protect my son if something happens?’”

Shepherd took steps to lawfully acquire, be trained, and familiarize herself with her firearm. She practices regularly. She did – and presumably does – everything as prescribed.

That wasn’t enough for former federal prosecutor Sunny Hostin.

Hostin admitted that she knew many black women who had acquired firearms recently but quickly pivoted to the supposed inherent risks of firearm ownership. She claimed having a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide and suicide but offered no references. The research that supports such claims is based on a flawed methodology to support a predetermined outcome. We’ve covered some examples here and here.

Hostin claimed she knows “the statistics” and referenced going to crime scenes as a federal prosecutor. Vaguely referencing advocacy masked as research does not afford anyone special insight into firearm ownership, nor does witnessing the aftermath of criminal actions.

After all, we know with certainty that criminals do not lawfully acquire the firearms they use in crimes. Hostin was a former federal prosecutor who won an award for prosecution of child sexual predators and child sex abuse. Her experience at crime scenes is very unlikely to be relevant to the lawful gun ownership exemplified by Sherri Shepherd – or a hundred million other law-abiding American gun owners.

Hostin concluded her soap box sermon with “”I still believe that in this country our readiness to sort of allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at will has led to violence and hatred becoming a really popular pastime.”

A former federal prosecutor should really know the difference between criminal and lawful actions. A former federal prosecutor should also know that federal law requires retailers to conduct a background check before all firearms purchases, and that the background check requirement as well as the prohibiting factors were codified in the 1968 Gun Control Act.

But that’s the game, right? Try to drum up some in-group credibility by claiming you or your friends own guns, and then blur the lines between lawful gun ownership and criminal behavior. Just like the drivel presented as “statistics,” this is a worn-out trope.

Shepherd tried to explain to her fellow panelists on “The View” and the audience that she found arming herself to be empowering. It seems that all Shepherd wants is a chance to keep her son and herself safe. “If something happens, I can protect my child.”

That’s what the 2nd Amendment provides: a chance.

Sherri Shepherd is just one of hundreds of thousands of black women who became first-time gun owners. The year 2020 may be over, but interest in firearms has not passed. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that 3.2 million people purchased a firearm for the first time in the first half of 2021. More than 90% of licensed firearms retailers reported an increase in black female customers in this time frame – along with sizeable increases in every other demographic group.

That’s in addition to the estimated 8.4 million new gun owners that joined our community last year. Approximately 11.6 million new gun owners in 18 months.

That’s a lot of people who, just like Sherri Shepherd, just want a chance to protect their loved ones.

There is nothing irresponsible or unlawful about that.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

California: San Diego County Considering Further Restrictions on Home-Built Firearms

California: San Diego County Considering Further Restrictions on Home-Built Firearms

On October 19th, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal to direct the drafting of an ordinance to further restrict the centuries-old practice of home-building firearms for personal use. You may click here to find details about the meeting. Please submit comments against the proposal by clicking the button below.

This proposal calls for the drafting of an ordinance to go beyond existing California law to define “’ghost guns,’ precursor parts for such guns and unserialized parts and guns,” ban the possession of unserialized parts for building firearms, prohibit making unserialized firearms or precursor parts specifically by 3D printing, and impose one-size-fits-all requirements for firearm storage.

California law already requires individuals to first apply for and receive serial numbers before assembling a home-built firearm and sets an allotted time for application. However, California law does not ban the possession of unserialized “materials” lacking the requisite milling to be considered a finished frame or receiver. In addition, it is already illegal under federal and state law for prohibited persons, such as felons, to possess firearms, regardless of whether they are factory, commercial firearms or home-built.

Such restrictions simply continue to cut off access to law-abiding citizens who wish to build their own firearm for personal use in accordance with federal and state law. By singling out 3D printing, it also tries to prevent hobbyists and tinkerers from exploring this emerging manufacturing process. There is no mention on whether it would similarly restrict making precursor parts by legacy manufacturing techniques, such as welding, milling, casting, or stamping, which are also widely available to consumers.

Again, please submit comments against this proposal.