Categories
California You have to be kidding, right!?!

Newsom Goes Nuts! Signs Bevy of Anti-Gun Bills Into Laws — 11% Tax on Firearms, Gun-Free Zones, More! by LARRY Z

Gov. Gavin Newsom in a video posted to Twitter.
Newsom is also pushing the anti-gun 28th Amendment. (Photo: Newsom/Twitter)

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed multiple anti-gun bills into law on September 26th, drawing criticism from gun-rights advocates.

Quote from Newsom

“While radical judges continue to strip away our ability to keep people safe, California will keep fighting — because gun safety laws work,” said Newsom in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica.

“The data proves they save lives: California’s gun death rate is 43% lower than the rest of the nation. These new laws will make our communities and families safer.”

Anti-Gun Legislation

  • Senate Bill 2: Enhances the issuance criteria for carry permits, increasing the scope of gun-free zones and restricting permit holders to only their registered handguns.
  • Senate Bill 452: Focuses on the microstamping feature in semi-automatic pistols, setting guidelines for replacing this component and detailing its potential mandatory implementation by 2028.
  • Assembly Bill 28: Introduces an 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts, with proceeds going to a “gun violence” fund.
  • Assembly Bill 1089: Extends California’s ban on manufacturing firearms using CNC milling machines or 3D printers by private individuals.
  • Assembly Bill 1587: Mandates credit card issuers to identify firearm and ammunition retailers using specific Merchant Category Codes.

Concerns Raised by Advocates

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) expressed concerns over the new laws. They allege they undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Andrew Gottlieb, CCRKBA’s Managing Director, criticized Newsom for penalizing honest gun owners.

“Gavin Newsom continues to blame gun owners for problems he is not addressing as the state’s chief executive,” said Gottlieb.

“Instead of cracking down on law-abiding gun owners by signing Senate Bill 2, which restricts lawful concealed carry, and Assembly Bill 28, creating an 11 percent excise tax on firearms and ammunition, he should be focusing his attention on the people committing crimes,” he continued.

SEE ALSO: California Lawmakers Back Newsom’s Push to Ratify Anti-Gun 28th Amendment

CCRKBA Board Member Cam Edwards noted that while Attorney General Rob Bonta claimed the right to carry escalates violent crime rates, data shows a nationwide drop in these rates over the past 30 years.

“Of course, it’s gun owners, not guns that these bills are cracking down on. Bonta claimed that the right to carry increases violent crime by 29%, even though violent crime rates have plunged across the country for the past 30 years even as a majority of states have adopted first shall-issue and now permitless carry laws,” said Edwards.

NRA’s Stance on Newsom’s Anti-Gun Laws

The National Rifle Association (NRA) stated that these laws would fail to impact criminals in California. They believe the measures will only create more obstacles for legal gun owners.

The NRA’s legal team announced plans to explore and possibly challenge these laws in court.

Conclusion… Lawsuits Inbound!

There’s little doubt that pro-2A groups will be challenging some of these new laws in the coming weeks. Check back for updates.

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

British L42A1 Sniper Rifle vs Navy Warship?!

Categories
California You have to be kidding, right!?!

Gee thats too bad! I am just worried about who our Greasehead Governor is going to replace her with!

Senator FEINSTEIN California (D) DEAD AT 90
WAS LONGEST SERVING WOMAN IN SENATE
The poster girl for Term Limits for all Politicians

Richard C. Blum and Dianne Feinstein: The Power Couple of California

Historical Essay

by Laurence H. Shoup

Sen dianne feinstein d calif smiles along with her husband richard blum left at a democratic election party in san francisco tuesday nov 7 2006.jpg

Senator Dianne Feinstein with her husband Richard Blum at a Democratic election party in San Francisco, November 7, 2006.

On January 20, 1980, in San Francisco, California, finance capitalist Richard C. Blum (born in 1936) and the ambitious Democratic Party politician Dianne Feinstein (born 1933) were married in a wedding ceremony at San Francisco City Hall. This marriage created a family economic and political alliance that in a little over a decade would allow them to become the top power couple in the state of California with a place on the national and world stages.

They remain at the pinnacle of power today, he as a billionaire financier, speculator, real estate executive and deal maker; she as the senior Senator (California’s highest federal official), from the largest and most powerful state in the United States.

They exemplify power as it is now wielded in the higher circles of the class system of the U.S. today, and illustrate well the dismal results of this system. This system is best characterized as a plutocratic kleptocracy, completely lacking in authentic democracy, operated by and for corporate racketeers, in short, a dictatorship of big capital, the top 1% of wealth holders, which makes up a ruling class.

Richard Blum 1-22-96 .jpg

Richard Blum at his swearing in for a city commission post, January 22, 1996.

Photo: Rick Gerharter

Blum is finance capital personified, and Feinstein precisely illustrates the corrupt, war-mongering, pro-corporate politicians who inhabit the upper reaches of the U.S. ruling class. To fully comprehend their rise to power, vast wealth and socio-political stance, one needs to understand the key developmental trends in the U.S. and world political economy during Blum-Feinstein’s rise during the last few decades. Also necessary is a comprehension of how Blum-Feinstein have both adapted to and helped quicken these developmental trends.

The Financialization of Capital Accumulation

The financial capitalist now plays the leading role in capitalist development, this type of capitalist has taken over from the formerly dominant industrial capitalist. This process also has financialized class and class relations; these are more and more characterized by extreme differences in wealth and income from the top to the bottom of the class system.

The top 1% of U.S. wealth holders, Blum and Feinstein among them, currently hold about 35% of the total wealth of the nation (43% of the financial wealth), and the top 20% have 85% of the total wealth. Conversely, the bottom 80% of the population owns only 15% of the wealth, the bottom 40% of the population owns only 0.3% of the nation’s wealth (basically nothing), and about one in six Americans (almost 50 million people) live in poverty, with no wealth and lacking even a minimal income.

In the case of Blum-Feinstein, we can see what being in the top 1% means. They currently own a private jet, a Gulfstream G650, worth $55 million in 2008. Blum-Feinstein also own an entire 161 room San Francisco hotel (The Carlton) and at least six other homes. At a low estimate, including their hotel, their personal real estate holdings, together with their private jet, are likely worth well over $100 million today.

Blum’s empire begins with his ownership of Blum Capital Partners, a firm he founded in 1975. In its 2005 edition, one standard industry source, Pratt’s Guide to Private Equity Sources, lists Blum Capital Partners as a firm “investing own capital” and having $1.589 billion under management. Two other, more recent sources, list the assets of Blum Capital at the higher levels of $2.8 billion and $4.5 billion. Blum’s firm’s clients reportedly include some of America’s wealthiest people and largest corporations, like oil heir Gordon Getty and Bank of America. Blum Capital Partners also has a joint venture with a much larger firm, The Texas Pacific Group (TPG) and Blum Capital Newbridge Capital to conduct this joint venture. Blum has been a Co-Chairman of both Newbridge and TPG.

Sen-Dianne-Feinstein-UC-Regent-Chairman-Richard-Blum-listen-as-National-Ignition-Facility-Director-NIFdedication 06 high res.jpg

Feinstein and Blum at a Lawrence Livermore Lab event in 2006.

Corporate Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is a version of extreme free market thinking, putting forth the pure logic of capital. Neoliberalism’s critique and actions aim not only at ending the regulatory and welfare states, it wants to shrink government’s role in economic and political life down to the point where the wealthy corporate ruling class will totally control economy, society, and political life with no interference.

Long theorized by right wing thinkers, neoliberalism came into vogue during the 1980s as a way to open up more economic living space for capital, “opening new markets.” As these areas are opened up, one result is an increase in the commodification of various aspects of life. Neoliberalism also opposes the former Keynesian consensus that fostered aspects of the welfare state, that is, offering some government benefits to the working class to pump up effective economic demand. According to neoliberal ideology, government should be weak and market/commodity relations dominant, so the Keynesian approach should be scrapped.

Neoliberalism as an ideology is completely hypocritical however, because virtually all of the government welfare, sweetheart contracts, tax cuts, subsidies and bailouts given to major corporations continue under neoliberal governance, only the Keynesian type benefits to workers are really cut.

In actual practice, therefore, it is a philosophy meant to make workers and their unions pay for the crisis tendencies of capitalism, making the capitalist crisis actually a working class crisis. Under corporate neoliberal thinking over the past thirty years, all aspects of the New Deal reforms of the 1930s have been under increasing attack.

Another aspect of neoliberal ideology is the ongoing attacks on unions, since union organizing and action to protect workers distorts the operations of the “free” market. Corporations are free to export jobs and income to low wage nations, but workers are often unjustly prevented from organizing unions both at home and in repressive nations abroad.

Blum and Feinstein’s policies and actions promote neoliberalism. Blum’s field of operation is worldwide, exporting jobs overseas to capture surplus value in areas of the world that are expanding rapidly at a time when there is stagnation in mature capitalist economies. Blum’s foreign investments have focused on Asia, including China, Australia, and Korea, often through the TPG and Newbridge Capital.

Feinstein and Blum are also major investors in two private educational corporations, the Career Educational Corporation, and ITT Educational Services. At the same time, Blum donated heavily to the political campaigns of California Governor Gray Davis, amounting to at least $75,000 in a two-year period beginning about 2000.

As a result, Davis, following his “pay to play” politics, appointed Blum to be a member of the University of California Board of Regents. Within a few years, Blum became the Chairman of this Board while it raised tuition for the University’s students again and again, increases that amounted to 32% in only one year. Students have had to take out massive loans to attend school.

One source indicates that the amount of debt loaded on all U.S. students has jumped from $90 billion in 1999 to $550 billion in 2011. As students were priced out of an increasingly expensive public university system, the inferior, privately operated correspondence type diploma mills where Blum had major investments became increasingly attractive.

Not to be left out of the drive to weaken public education and teachers unions in order to open space for private capital accumulation, Feinstein had become a supporter of school vouchers by 2003, undermining public schools by allowing parents to use public money to pay for tuition at private or parochial schools in Washington, D.C. (San Francisco Chronicle July 23, 2003:A3).

FOUNDSF-Feinstein head 0578 .jpg

Senator Dianne Feinstein speaking at the annual gala of the Human RIghts Campaign, October 22, 2011.

Photo: Rick Gerharter

A final aspect is cutting taxes on the wealthy, and, of course, Feinstein consistently favors such cuts. One example is Feinstein’s support for a phase-out of inheritance taxes on large estates. In July of 2000, she was one of a small group of Democratic Senators defending and voting for a Republican sponsored bill to repeal an estate tax law first passed in 1916, a law that applied to only the top 2% of taxable estates.

Imperialism, Militarism and War

The imperialist policies to be followed by the U.S. and NATO are discussed and developed by think tanks and policy forming organizations the leading U.S. private, (closely connected to official circles), such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Brookings Institute. A similar organization, only international in membership is the Trilateral Commission, which draws its members from many countries in Europe, North America and Asia. Blum-Feinstein are closely connected with all three of these private foreign planning organizations and their imperialist policies. Both Blum and Feinstein have been members of the CFR for a number of years (membership is by invitation only). Blum has been a trustee of and part of the power structure of the Brookings Institute for years (Brookings regularly hosts the “Brookings-Blum Roundtable” discussion series) and Feinstein currently serves on the North American branch of the Trilateral Commission, after having first become involved with this organization in 1988. One result of these close connections is the fact that Feinstein is an enthusiastic war hawk and strongly supports all the current wars and occupations of U.S. imperialism, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya.

Feinstein also chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. She approved of the appointment of General David Petraeus to head the CIA, saying that she had “enormous respect” for him, and that the U.S. should “…put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket…” This illustrates that Feinstein has embraced the dangerous and illegal new method of warfare now being waged by the CIA under Petraeus. This new way of war is to send robotic machines (drones) over borders to kill thousands of people, even American citizens who are viewed as enemies.

Managed “Democracy”: A Corporate Dominated Political System

In recent decades the level of corporate domination of American politics has clearly increased. The pathways to intensified corporate control have been through the candidate selection process, campaign finance, massive lobbying, favorable media coverage to corporate ruling class linked candidates, expert advisers from ruling class think tanks and vote rigging through exclusion of people and through computers. Corporations claiming to be human beings can now purchase unlimited “free speech”, while real citizens are often denied such rights by their relative poverty, lack of access to media, or by police repression. Collectively, this has resulted in making the U.S. political system mostly a managed “democracy.”

Blum and Feinstein are key players in what can best be called the San Francisco Democratic Party political machine. Feinstein conducted Jerry Brown’s wedding (to a former Vice President of the Gap) where the entire Bay Area political machine was present, and hosted a wedding shower for Gavin Newsom at her Pacific Heights mansion, illustrating her close personal, economic and political ties to key members of this group. The group obviously also has important national level connections as well, former Vice President Al Gore is a long time friend and business partner of Blum.

While pretending to represent the interests of the rank and file, once in office, Feinstein and other corporate ruling class supported politicians payoff their partners with policies favorable to their interests, including government contracts. Again Blum and Feinstein are prime examples of how this corrupt system really works. Senator Feinstein, who was already in October of 1994 called “… the most prolific fund-raiser among all federal candidates” by the Los Angeles Times (October 28, 1994: A1), has received large campaign donations (in the thousands from each one) from a truly amazing list of top California and national level corporations.

The daughter of a wealthy doctor, educated at elite private schools, including Stanford University, Feinstein spent her way to political power, breaking records for campaign fundraising and spending beginning with her early campaigns for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Serving the wealthy, first and foremost herself and her husband, has marked her career. As the Los Angeles Times (October 28, 1994: A24) expressed it after observing only her actions for only a short time in office:

“A review of the senator’s first two years in office found that Feinstein supported several positions that benefited Blum, his wealthy clients and their investments. She was a vocal proponent of increased trade with China while Blum’s firm was planning a major investment there. She also voted for appropriations bills that provided more than $100 million a year in federal funds to three companies in which her husband is a substantial investor.”

In 2007 investigative reporter Peter Byrne published a series of reports that showed that her actions in the early 1990s was only the beginning of Feinstein’s aiding her husband’s firms. As chairperson of the Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee from 2001-2007, Feinstein supervised and supported the appropriation of over $1.5 billion for two military contractors, URS Corporation and Perini Corporation, both companies that Blum had a controlling interest in. Blum later sold URS for a reported personal profit of $57 million. When Feinstein’s actions were exposed in early 2007, she abruptly quit her post on this subcommittee.

Blum returns the favor, raising more money for his politician wife than any other individual. He arranges contributions and loans to her campaigns in the millions. At least sometimes this got the power couple into trouble, even with the weak campaign finance laws that exist.

In Feinstein’s failed 1990 Governor campaign for example, the Feinstein campaign failed to disclose a series of bank loans arranged by Blum that amounted to at least $2.9 million. Her campaign was fined a total of $190,000 by California’s state watchdog agency, the largest such cash settlement in state history, for an “outrageous case of gross negligence” (Los Angeles Times December 22, 1992: A1, A29).

A more recent example of gross negligence and incompetence in the area of campaign finance on the part of Feinstein and her staff was exposed when the FBI arrested her campaign treasurer, Kinde Durkee for stealing funds from a number of campaign accounts that she managed, including Feinstein’s (S.F. Chronicle September 14, 2011:A9).

As is the case on every other key question involving our collective future, Feinstein has been and is against the people’s interest in having a just and free society. In a 2011 editorial, the San Francisco Chronicle (May 26, 2011:A15) called her “one of the biggest cheerleaders for renewing…” Bush’s Patriot Act, which allows roving wiretaps, snooping into personal records and permits the unwarranted surveillance of people without having to show probable cause.

The Chronicle said that Feinstein and other supporters of renewal were going “too far” and were “erasing bedrock guarantees” of the Constitution. This action is part of a pattern of spying favored by Feinstein. In 2007 she voted for immunity for telecommunications companies who illegally spied on their customers. Some of these, such as ATT, were also heavy donors to her political campaigns. As Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee she also recently criticized the CIA for not spying enough on the Egyptian people, stating that “the CIA should have monitored Facebook more closely.”

The Ecological Crisis

The ongoing and accelerating global ecological crisis is deeply rooted in the anti-ecological imperatives of capitalist production and exchange for profit and accumulation. Corporate capitalism is a system requiring constant “expand or die” growth, a system whose main measure of success is how much capital is accumulated. This results not only in human alienation, it also results in the alienation from and destruction of entire natural ecosystems, such as forests, rivers, and grasslands.

Blum and Feinstein routinely undercut ecological needs in favor of the accumulation of wealth and power. One example is Feinstein’s relationship to wealthy corporate farmer Stewart Resnick, the owner of over one hundred thousand acres of prime farmland in the San Joaquin Valley. He has written big check after big check to her political campaigns, as well as hosted her at least two of his mansions. Over the past few decades he has also given several million dollars to the Democratic and Republican Parties and their candidates. Then, when Resnick called Feinstein in 2009 to weigh in on the side of corporate agribusiness in a drought fueled ecological dispute over water to big landowners or water for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta’s ecological needs, Feinstein jumped in, pushing the agribusiness viewpoint onto two Cabinet level secretaries and calling for a sweeping review of the science to allow more water to go to Resnick and other big operators. Due largely to excessive water diversions, the Delta’s ecology is in serious trouble, with fish populations in catastrophic decline.

Blum and Feinstein also favor and work for “wilderness,” she in the Senate sponsoring legislation to set aside public lands as preserves, and he as a member of the Governing Council of the Wilderness Society. The nature and politics of Blum’s Wilderness Society can be seen by looking at its Governing Council and one of its “corporate partners.” The Governing Council is filled with the super rich like Blum and includes a member of the Getty oil family, a member of the Roosevelt family, a Rockefeller family in-law, a Texas Pacific Group private equity billionaire, an adviser to Clinton-Gore White House and a past chairman of Recreational Equipment Company, which sells products for outdoor activities. Its leading corporate partner is Bank of America, which, for years financed mountain top removal to mine coal by Massey Energy and International Coal Group. Under the pressure of direct action against it, the Bank of America cut back on but did not end such financing. The Blum-Feinstein-Wilderness Society approach of creating a few islands of non-development in a sea of life destroying capitalist ecocide is clearly inadequate as a strategy of ecological and human survival.

Conclusion: Blum-Feinstein and the Corporate State

The five interrelated waves of our age, and Blum-Feinstein’s role, illustrate that the Democratic Party and its leaders are every bit against the people’s interest as the Republican Party. Both favor the corporate state and capitalist austerity, imperialism, war and capitalist ecocide. Blum-Feinstein stand solidly for the financialization of accumulation and the private use of this wealth to benefit a small group of wealthy owners (the 1%); they stand for neoliberal ideology; for imperialism, militarism and war; for undemocratic corporate political rule; and for weak and inadequate measures to confront the ecological crisis.

Historian, author and activist Laurence H. Shoup lives in Oakland, California. His most recent book is “Rulers and Rebels: A People’s History of Early California, 1769-1901”.

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

7 Best Bear Defense Handguns of 2023 (Give me a good rifle or Riot Shotgun Thankee!)

Categories
All About Guns Ammo You have to be kidding, right!?!

A Ruger NO. 1, LIMITED RUN CALIBER, CHAMBERED IN 7.62×39

Ruger NO. 1, LIMITED RUN CALIBER, CHAMBERED IN 7.62x39 - Picture 3
But why, I ask? As this has to be one of the most screw balled ideas that I have seen in a while.
Now I have a fair amount of time shooting the 762×39 round, Up in the local national parks of Las Padres Forest when it was legal to do so. Back in the wonderful late 80’s and 90s’ of the last century. When a thousand rounds of heathen Red Chinese ammo could be bought for under a penny a round.
But even back then in those glorious times. I the rookie noticed that this was not the end all for the search for the perfect rifle round. Otherwise the Chinese would not be dumping Billions of rounds of their army on the American gun market.
As it is not really going to knock the 6.5 Credmoor or the 243 Winchester off the throne of super accurate rifle ammo. Nor did I ever even think of taking it hunting. Since basically it is designed really for close range urban warfare, Not Bambi busting.
So all I can say about this classic rifle in an oddball caliber. Is that it either it will wind up as an investment safe queen. Or it will be somebodys plinking toy. I.E. A very bright soul that stocked up a lot of cheap 7.62×39 back in the day. Grumpy
Ruger NO. 1, LIMITED RUN CALIBER, CHAMBERED IN 7.62x39 - Picture 4
Ruger NO. 1, LIMITED RUN CALIBER, CHAMBERED IN 7.62x39 - Picture 5
Ruger NO. 1, LIMITED RUN CALIBER, CHAMBERED IN 7.62x39 - Picture 6
Ruger NO. 1, LIMITED RUN CALIBER, CHAMBERED IN 7.62x39 - Picture 7
Ruger NO. 1, LIMITED RUN CALIBER, CHAMBERED IN 7.62x39 - Picture 8
Categories
Well I thought it was funny! You have to be kidding, right!?!

Ah France

followed by after Waterloo

Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

Pentagon moves to silence SEALs about missions by Kimberly Dozier

(AP)—The U.S. military is cracking down on special operations troops who share knowledge of their secret missions for profit, punishing seven Navy SEALs, including one involved in the mission to get Osama bin Laden, who moonlighted as advisers on a combat video game.

 

Current and former SEALs, including the author of a tell-all book on the bin Laden raid, complain they’re getting mixed messages from the military, which likes to see itself on big and small screens on its own terms.

The seven SEALs are being reprimanded and having their pay docked for sharing information with the designers of “Medal of Honor: ,” by video game company EA, according to military officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigations publicly.

The men will remain in the SEAL teams, but were punished for working on the video without their command’s permission, revealing classified information by sharing the tactics they use and showing designers some of their specially designed combat equipment unique to their unit, the officials said.

Four more SEALs could face the similar punishment.

The deputy commander of Naval Special Warfare Command, Rear Adm. Garry Bonelli, issued a statement acknowledging that nonjudicial punishments had been handed out for misconduct, but he did not offer any details.

“We do not tolerate deviations from the policies that govern who we are and what we do as sailors in the United States Navy,” Bonelli said. He alluded to the importance of honoring nondisclosure agreements that SEALs sign.

He said the punishments this week “send a clear message throughout our force that we are and will be held to a high standard of accountability.”

The SEALs’ unauthorized work came to light as part of the investigation of the book “No Easy Day,” by former SEAL Matt Bissonnette, with his firsthand account of the raid that killed bin Laden in Pakistan last year. Publisher Penguin’s Dutton Imprint ignored the Pentagon’s warnings that the book contained classified information and published the book just ahead of the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11th attacks.

The Pentagon would have a hard time proving the video game makers had disseminated classified information that threatened national security because the combat tactics shown in the game are common to games and action movies, said Mark Zaid, a Washington-based national security attorney who regularly handles cases involving secrecy agreements and .

EA spokesman Peter Nguyen said the company has no plans to recall “Medal of Honor: Warfighter,” and there are “no plans to alter the content contributed by combat veterans in the game.” He would not elaborate.

“EA didn’t break any rules,” said Michael Pachter of Wedbush Securities, an investment firm that follows video game companies. “It’s not against the law for them to ask questions.”

Video game companies often use military consultants for games in order to make them as realistic as possible.

The Xbox 360 version of the game scored poorly on with just 52 points out of 100 on Metacritic, a gaming website that aggregates reviews, Pachter said.

Pachter expects the latest “Medal of Honor,” which launched on Oct. 23, to sell 3 million copies. The “Call of Duty” games routinely sell more than that in their first day in stores.

The SEALs who were punished for helping with the game were all members of Bissonnette’s old unit, SEAL Team 6. Officials say Bissonnette drafted his friends from his old unit SEAL Team 6 to work on the video game—a common practice among the SEAL teams, where current and former members help trusted teammates to find work.

Current and former special operators troops complain there’s a double standard when it comes to publicizing details of their missions. This year’s movie “Act of Valor” was filmed with the Pentagon’s approval and featured active-duty Navy SEALs, showing off the methods they use on the battlefield. Navy officials say they worked with the filmmakers as a recruiting tool and that unlike the video game, or the Bissonnette raid book, the filmmakers gave them an opportunity to review the film for classified material. They also point out that the SEALs in that movie were unpaid.

“I don’t know if terrorists can just take from a  tactics … but it does speak to a bigger issue that just, hey, if you’re not authorized to give out information or speak about information, then you have to be held accountable,” said former Navy SEAL Scott Taylor, now with Special Operations OPSEC, a political advocacy group that criticized the Obama administration during the presidential campaign for releasing details of the bin Laden raid.

The head of Naval Special Warfare Command, Rear Adm. Sean Pybus, responded to the Bissonnette book by telling his force that “hawking details about a mission” and selling other information about SEAL training and operations puts the force and their families at risk.

Members of the SEAL community have been embarrassed by the rash of books and films about the elite force, and some SEALs say they fear top secret missions will now be given instead to units whose members keep quiet.

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

StG44 with Original Matching Scope!

Categories
All About Guns Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

South Africa: Using Only Pistols, Local Militia Stops 15 Armed Robbers with AK-47s Who Blew Up Armored Truck

4 armed robbers were killed by local volunteers after blowing up an armored car and killing the driver

On Thursday, 9/21, local farmer militiamen in South Africa stopped a gang of 15 armed robbers armed with AK-47s who had just robbed an armored car, killing the driver. The local volunteers apprehended the fugitives after a high-speed chase, including a dangerous Mozambican criminal wanted for murder of a police officer.

The robbery took place in Hoedspruit (Hat Springs) outside Polokwane in Limpopo Province, which were named Pietersburg and North Transvaal by the original settlers before the campaign to ethnically cleanse the Afrikaner language and culture from South Africa.

Heavily armed attacks on armored cars are so common in South Africa they are known as Cash-in-Transit heists (CIT).

“15 robbers armed with automatic rifles carried out a CIT heist in Hoedspruit, killing the Fidelity driver,“ reports YouTuber Willem Petzer.

According to police spokesman Colonel Matimba Maluleke, the suspects shot at the escort vehicle before disarming the guards (a driver and crew) of their official rifle and pistol. “Unfortunately the two guards were shot at and sustained injuries that resulted in the death of the driver. The suspects then pursued the armoured vehicle while shooting at it until it stopped.

The driver of the armoured vehicle and his crew were allegedly ordered to disembark the vehicle, disarmed of two firearms and chased into the nearby bushes. The suspects used explosives to blast the vehicle and made off with an undisclosed amount of money,” Maluleke said.

“A community crime watch group, Hoedspruit Farmwatch, was alerted to the incident and went in pursuit of the robbers, putting obstacles on the road to prevent their escape. A shootout ensued,” Petzer writes.

“The Hoedspruit Farmwatch volunteers blocked the roads outside of Hoedspruit with boulders after they were alerted of the attack. A skirmish, lasting about 20 minutes, ensued at one of the blockades between the robbers and the farmers, who were armed with pistols. The farmers managed to kill 4 of the robbers and wound 3. No farmer was hurt. The other suspects fled into nearby bushes after the shootout on foot.”

“The Hoedspruit farmwatch tracked them down using their dogs and arrested the rest of them, recovering all the money from the heist. Great job by the farmers!” Petzer writes.

Hoedspruit Farmwatch denied that South African Police Service officers had fled the scene.

Police spokesperson Colonel Malesela Ledwaba said the community protection team “returned fire and when the dust settled, four suspects were fatally shot, one injured and arrested while others managed to evade arrest by running into nearby bushes,” The Citizen reports.

The fleeing duo was “arrested while travelling to Acornhoek in a taxi following an intense search mission by the Hoedspruit Farmwatch, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and a chopper,” Ledwaba stated.

“One of the arrested suspects is a highly wanted Mozambican suspect who has been on the run for some time for a spate of crimes he committed in the Free State in 2022 including the murder of a police officer. The injured suspects were found in possession of suspected stolen money, a rifle and a pistol,” the police spokesman said.

Several community safety organizations met Sept. 19 in Centurion to join forces to to curb farm attacks and rural crime, including AfriForumSouthern African Agri Initiative (SAAI), Transvaal Agricultual Union TLU SA, AgriSA, Forum Sekuriteit, Sakeliga, the South African Special Forces Association (SASFA) and the Association for South African Military veterans, AfriForum reported.

“AfriForum is excited about the fact that all these organisations are willing to join hands and make a difference against the wave of farm attacks and increasing rural crime. The SAPS itself has already admitted that it cannot fulfil its mandate, and this is obvious when one looks at the chaotic state of crime in the country. It is now time for communities to safeguard themselves,” said Jacques Broodryk, AfriForum’s spokesperson for Community Safety.

According to Dr. Theo de Jager, executive director of SAAI, the different organizations, civil structures and agricultural unions have feet on the ground when it comes to rural security: “Some organisations have farm watches in remote areas or camera systems, radio networks, emergency centres or response units. Others post guards, patrol national roads or establish and manage private fire services. Ultimately, everyone is in the same industry and has one goal in mind – to secure communities where the government can no longer do it,” said De Jager.

AfriForum’s Security Head Jacques Broodryk on Farm Murders:

 

Categories
Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Seeking Attention, Not Solutions in New Mexico

After several weeks of the abject failure of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s (D) attempt to suspend constitutional rights in her state, there are a number of theories as to what, exactly, she was hoping to accomplish. First, and foremost, though, it appears to have been little more than a PR stunt. She all but said as much.

After receiving public opposition to her outlandish announcement of an unconstitutional 30-day ban on open and concealed carry of firearms in public places in Bernalillo County, followed quickly by numerous lawsuits and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcing the ban, part of Lujan Grisham’s response to the TRO was to state, “Over the past four days (since issuing the order), I’ve seen more attention on resolving the crisis of gun violence than I have in the past four years.”

So she apparently got the publicity she was craving.

Not only is her comment a bald-faced lie, though, it’s an admission of failure, as Lujan Grisham has been in office for the past four years, and her party has controlled both chambers of the New Mexico legislature over that same time period. If she hasn’t been able to enact the laws she thinks will address violent crime involving those who use firearms in an illegal fashion over the last four years, either she is bad at governing, or her ideas are simply wildly unpopular or complete failures at achieving their alleged goals.

Probably a bit of all of that, really.

For the past four years, there has been a great deal of “attention” in the legislature on Lujan Grisham’s notion that infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners will somehow stop violent criminals from being violent criminals. Just go to NRAILA.org, then scroll down and use the filter to select New Mexico and All Dates. There have been countless anti-gun bills introduced, and some have even passed to become law. None have proven to be capable of reducing the violent acts of criminals misusing firearms.

Speaking of the apparent unpopularity of her ideas, one cannot help but notice the lack of support for her PR stunt. Honestly, it’s a bit surprising, knowing just how radical the anti-Second Amendment community is.

Lujan Grisham, during her press conference announcing her attempt to suspend the rights of law-abiding gun owners, stated that she had spoken to the White House prior to enacting the order. She didn’t say what kind of feedback she received, but considering there have not been any comments from anyone in the Biden administration about her actions—actions that have received national coverage by many media outlets—it may be safe to presume the subject matter is as toxic to Biden as his son’s legal problems.

Anti-gun organizations have been equally mum. None of the groups that supported Lujan Grisham’s election—like Everytown/Moms Demand and Giffords—have issued a single statement in support of the governor’s stunt. Normally, anti-gun organizations are eager to praise the actions of anti-gun politicians; especially when they are put in the national spotlight.

But so far, all we’ve heard are crickets.

Similarly, these groups tend to file amicus briefs in support of anti-gun efforts that are challenged in court. Again, nothing on the aforementioned groups’ websites mentions filing any briefs in support of Lujan Grisham.

In fact, New Mexico’s attorney general, Raul Torrez (D), has publicly stated he will not defend the governor’s order in court, noting that it is clearly unconstitutional. Torrez, it should be noted, was also endorsed by the anti-gun groups Giffords and Everytown/Moms Demand.

Even some of the most vocal, radical anti-gun individuals called out Lujan Grisham for overstepping her authority with the unconstitutional ban on the right to carry. Anti-gun US Representative Ted Lieu (D-Cal.) posted to X (formerly Twitter) that the order “violates the U.S. Constitution,” and that “(t)here is no such thing as a public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.” Anti-gun activist David Hogg, as if cutting and pasting from some damage control script sent out by “moderate” anti-gunners, used virtually the same language as Lieu about a “public health emergency exception.”

Then, the very weekend the order was first put into place, peaceful protestors in Albuquerque carried firearms in the city—both openly and, presumably, concealed—with not a single arrest made or citation issued.

Some of the more radical political operatives in the country may not have realized these were peaceful protests, as no riots took place, no businesses were looted or burned down, and nobody was assaulted. Nonetheless, they were the epitome of peaceful protests.

Thus far, her actions have resulted in numerous legal challenges, including one filed by NRA-ILA, and one TRO issued by a Biden-appointed judge. Yes, you read that right, the first of what will likely be numerous defeats for Lujan Grisham’s PR stunt was issued by a judge appointed by Joe Biden.

After the TRO was issued, the governor amended her order to narrow the unconstitutional suspension of the right to carry firearms to apply to “public parks or playgrounds” in the affected area. Of course, diminishing the area an unconstitutional order impacts does not make it less unconstitutional, it just has the potential to decrease the number of people who might be affected. Virtually every legal challenge to the order, even as amended, shall likely continue. We know ours will.

But if you need any more evidence that the governor was merely looking for attention, rather than actual solutions, again, just consider what she says. When asked directly, during her own press conference announcing her action, if she thought criminals would obey the order, she said no, but thought it would send a message. She even openly admitted that she was issuing the order without having figured out how it would be enforced.

“Sending a message” may be one of the worst defenses of an unconstitutional law we’ve heard, but considering she admits her order will not affect criminals, it may be the only defense she has.