.JPG)
Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Looks like Big Brother is doing his usual stupid thing again. According to Public Intelligence:
A joint bulletin issued in early August by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI warns state and local law enforcement agencies to look out for people in possession of “large amounts” of weapons and ammunition, describing the discovery of “unusual amounts” of weapons as a potential indicator of criminal or terrorist activity.
Citing the example of Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who reportedly “stockpiled approximately 12,000 pounds of precursors, weapons, and armor and hid them underground in remote, wooded locations,” the bulletin instructs law enforcement to look for “large amounts of weapons, ammunition, explosives, accelerants, or explosive precursor chemicals” that “could indicate pre-operational terrorist attack planning or criminal activity.” Weapons do not have to be “cached” in remote locations to meet the standard for suspicious activity. According to the bulletin, weapons could be stored in an “individual’s home, storage facility, or vehicle” and may include common firearms such as “rifles, shotguns, pistols” as well as “military grade weapons.” The illegal possession of large amounts of ammunition is also listed as a potential indicator of “criminal weapons possession related to terrorism.” While the bulletin never clarifies what constitutes a “large” or “unusual” quantity of weapons or ammunition, it does say that such a quantity would “arouse suspicion in a reasonable person.”
There’s more at the link.
The photograph of a ‘weapons cache’ accompanying the article shows a mere five long guns (rifles and shotguns) and seven handguns, for a total of twelve firearms. I could multiply that total a couple of times before running out of the contents of my gun safe, and I don’t have a particularly large collection. Some of my friends could out-do me by an order of magnitude! Consider, for example, these photographs of private – yes, private – gun collections borrowed from this thread on AR15.com (click over there to see many pages of similar pictures – it’s a feast for the eyes of any firearm hobbyist!).
So tell me – are those collections “potential indicator[s] of criminal or terrorist activity”? If not, then my much smaller and lower-quality collection can hardly be considered to be so . . . unless you’re an unthinking, knee-jerk-reacting bureaucrat, I suppose!
As for ammunition – what precisely do they mean by “the illegal possession of large amounts of ammunition”? It’s not illegal to possess ammunition unless you’re a convicted felon – and there are no federal restrictions whatsoever on the quantity of ammunition one may have in one’s possession. (There may be local restrictions such as fire regulations, etc., but these will be area-specific.) To merely say that the quantity would “arouse suspicion in a reasonable person” is ridiculous. For a start, define ‘reasonable’. What does it mean? What’s a reasonable quantity of ammunition to me, as a rifle shooter, might seem alarmingly large to someone who doesn’t shoot at all, or appear ridiculously inadequate to someone who owns one or more machine-guns in the same caliber as my rifle. He might consume a one-year supply of ammunition for me in only a few minutes of firing! Witness last April’s Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot:
I know a few private individuals who each currently have more than a million rounds of ammunition in their storerooms. (Two of them are friends of mine.) They happen to shoot several hundred thousand rounds per year, so they don’t consider such stocks unreasonable – but the average suburban soccer mom who doesn’t shoot at all would probably have hysterics if she knew they were stored in her neighborhood. (I don’t know why, because it’s no threat to her; but logic usually doesn’t enter into the calculation for such people.)
I try to buy ammunition in case lots – 500 or 1,000 rounds at a time. That quantity will last me for anything from a few months to a few years in the calibers I shoot. I buy it in bulk because it’s cheaper that way. I’m a retired pastor and retired law enforcement officer. Does my buying ammunition in bulk, and possessing a few thousand rounds of it, suddenly render me suspicious to the authorities? If so, I have a few words for them . . . none of them polite!
This is yet another bureaucratic overreach. Perfectly normal activities are now classified as potentially suspicious – and don’t let that word ‘potentially’ fool you. In practice, it means that some law enforcement officers and/or agencies will claim that your possession of large quantities of firearms and/or ammunition is automatically grounds for suspicion, and that you’re therefore automatically to be regarded as a potential terrorist, or criminal, or whatever. Don’t tell me that doesn’t happen. It does. I’ve seen it far too many times before – and the more bureaucratic and unthinking the officer or agency, the more likely it is to happen. Constitutional safeguards are all too often ignored in the process.
It’s long gone time we tossed out of office the politicians who approved the ‘security state’, and dismantled the ‘security bureaucracies’ that do nothing whatsoever to keep us safe – except consume our tax dollars in ever-increasing amounts, and put out such inane ‘alerts’.
Polished brass is one sign of spring around my house. This means I’ve
already hit the range, cleaned the guns and tumbled the empties.
Traditionally, when spring rolls around (it started March 20, just in case you missed it), it’s been my habit to head for the range and burn up a few rounds just to make up for all the time spent inside, escaping the winter weather.
It also provides an excuse to do a couple of things. First, I wind up with a lot of spent brass, which goes immediately into the tumbler for a good hot water scrub. Second, it forces me to clean and lubricate some firearms that may have been sitting idle since last fall. And finally, it is always revealing and humbling when guns I may have felt were zeroed a few months ago need a sight adjustment.
Firearms are lots of things to lots of people. They are tools, investments and personal reminders of experiences in the past; memories that can grow fonder as the months and years pass. We all have a few favorites, and some which may have been around for a while simply because they still come in handy.
Last fall, for example, I pulled a 20-gauge side-by-side double-barrel shotgun from the safe I hadn’t used in some time. It rode along on a couple of deer hunts, and we caught up on life, politics, the weather, and both of us wondered where all the grouse had gone. It is now spiffed up with a fresh wipe from an oily cloth, and the action has gotten a couple of drops of oil in the right spots.
Dave says it’s a good idea to shoot in all kinds of conditions, all times of year. Yep, that’s snow in the background, light was fading and that parka wasn’t just for laughs.
The day before writing this installment, I visited the range — located in a ravine where one could probably hang beef anytime between November and early March because direct sunshine doesn’t seem to find its way in there — for about an hour. Shooting off a rest at 25 yards, it became immediately obvious the sights on the three revolvers I was shooting needed adjustment.
It is important to practice as many times as possible, throughout the year. I’ve done stints at the outdoor range after dark, in December and January, when it was bitterly cold. I’ve been there in the March and November rain, a few times when it was snowing, and in less-than-ideal light conditions. Until the weather gods start scheduling all emergencies in mid-summer under blue skies, I’ll stick with my current strategy.
Helpful Forum Friend
One important thing happened at some point, either during my early March visit or maybe last fall when I last fired one of my most cherished sixguns, a vintage Model 57 Smith & Wesson with a 6-inch barrel.
Here’s a big “oops.” Notice the extractor pin is missing from Dave’s cylinder.
But his friends on a popular handgun forum came to the rescue.
As I was cleaning this revolver, I noticed one of the two tiny extractor pins had vanished. It wasn’t broken off, it was just gone and all that remained was the hole in which it fit. My first reflex was to check if one was available online, and that was a no-go. So, I then turned my attention to the Smith & Wesson forum, whining as best as I could muster, and within minutes, several of my sixgun comrades responded.
One guy suggested using the tail end of a small drill bit (they’re steel). Another fellow assured me the handgun will “work without it,” which it probably had been. His message was worth a chuckle: “I have replaced one and had it disappear again, so I said the hell with it. No problem for years.”
Then came a fellow named Carter, who made me an offer I couldn’t refuse: “I’ll send you a couple, .052”, .210” long.” When I asked what he was owed, his reply once again underscores how there are remarkably good people in the shooting fraternity.
“No charge,” he wrote. “I made up some extras to give to members. I’ll put them in the mail tomorrow. Plain white envelope that I damaged and re-taped on the back.”
He advised me to make sure the hole was clean and when installing the replacement, add a tiny bit of thread locker, and wipe off the excess. I certainly would have done that anyway, but my gratitude to this fellow says I owe him one.
The Capitol building in Olympia, Wash., where anti-gunners have
been trying to repeal state preemption since it became law four
decades ago. Dave was there to testify against the plan in January,
missing the SHOT Show.
Preemption Spared … Again
Anti-gun lawmakers in Washington State came up short again last month when they couldn’t pass legislation to repeal the state’s 40-year-old preemption statute.
Why is this important? If you live in a state which adopted a preemption statute sometime during the last four decades, it is likely Washington’s law was the inspiration. The gun control crowd would be happy to knock out the source statute, and then start attacking its progeny. Perhaps it was a good idea to stay home from the SHOT Show and testify against the bill in January.
This isn’t about providing local control over guns; it’s about creating a checkerboard of confusing and sometimes conflicting laws with the ultimate goal of either discouraging gun ownership at the local level or creating legal violations that may be useful to deny people their Second Amendment rights at some future date.
Still, nobody should rest easy in Washington or anywhere else while the legislature is in session. Any kooky idea thought dead could suddenly emerge from the ashes as an amendment to another bill.
Nebraska Permitless?
As this was written, lawmakers in Nebraska were locked in debate over Legislative Bill 77, which is aimed at allowing concealed carry without a permit.
It’s not technically a “constitutional carry” bill because it does not include open carry. As reported by the Nebraska Examiner, the bill’s prime sponsor, State Sen. Tom Brewer, “pointed out that it’s already legal to carry a firearm openly in Nebraska, except in businesses and other places where it is prohibited.” Presumably, there would not be much point in making that part of the bill.
As reported by the legislation would not eliminate background checks for gun purchases. One opponent contended the current training requirement would be lost if people were not required to take a course in order to obtain a permit. The Lincoln Journal Star said Sen. Brewer offered assurances to his colleagues that volunteer firearm instructors are already “preparing to offer gun safety training at no cost to gun owners throughout the state as a replacement for the current requirement which is accompanied by a fee.”
Omaha Police Chief Todd Schmaderer and Lincoln Police Chief Teresa Ewins were opposing the measure at this writing. So was Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert and members of the city council.
What’s at stake here is more than just a Midwest state adopting legislation allowing concealed carry without a permit. It would become symbolic for tilting a small but significant majority of states allowing carry without a license or permit, the way it was at the founding, ergo, the generic nickname “constitutional carry.”
If all the pieces fall into place, this year could see Florida, Nebraska and South Carolina joining the lineup of states where lawmakers trust the people to exercise their right to bear arms without a bunch of red tape. Watch these states. If you live in any of them, stay in touch with your state lawmaker.
I will say that there was one thing that surprised me in the anti-gunner’s collective statement of outrage: not one of them said anything about blue-states like California responding in kind to the red-state laws that supposedly led to the cold feet on the part of companies like Visa and Mastercard. Maybe they don’t want to tip their hands, but those efforts are almost certainly coming. Gavin Newsom loves to pick culture war fights, and if he’s going after Walgreens over abortion then it probably won’t be long before he demands credit card companies either implement these MCCs or face the wrath of lawmakers in Sacramento.
Here we are just a few months later and sure enough, some of the California legislature’s most vociferous anti-gunners are doing just that. AB 1587 was approved by the Assembly on a 76-0 vote, and is now moving through the Senate. On Thursday the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee gave it’s preliminary approval, and AB 1587 is scheduled to be heard in Senate Judiciary next Tuesday along with AB 1089, another anti-gun measures that adds three-dimensional printers and CNC milling machines to the definition of firearm-related products; requiring “anybody who uses a three-dimensional printer or CNC milling machine to manufacture a firearm to be a state-licensed manufacturer” while prohibiting “the sale, purchase, possession, or receipt of a three-dimensional printer that has the sole or primary function of manufacturing firearms”.
Ahead of next week’s hearing AB 1587’s primary Senate sponsor is already trying to make the case that the legislation will be able to prevent mass shootings and gun trafficking.
Unsurprisingly, Min’s argument doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. First, the merchant category codes wouldn’t identify specific transactions, only dollar amounts and the date and location of purchases. How are credit card companies supposed to determine if a particular transaction is “suspicious” enough to warrant reporting? These MCCs are supposed to help identify financial crimes like fraud, not serve as some sort of Minority Report-style pre-crime surveillance system, and even some credit card company execs have pointed out that the codes will be of no use in identifying potential killers.
Heck, as the Firearms Policy Coalition pointed out to Min, even the legislative analysis of AB 1587 directly contradicts his assertions.
California already collects more information on gun and ammo buyers than what would be gathered through the use of merchant category codes for firearm retailers, with “universal” background checks run on all purchases of both guns and ammunition. AB 1587 is a culture war tit-for-tat response to laws in Florida, Mississippi, and other states that would fine companies that adopt and utilize the codes. Just as those states provide financial penalties for adopting the codes, AB 1587 would empower California Attorney General Rob Bonta to fine both those companies that don’t start make those codes available for retailers as well as retailers themselves if they don’t start using the codes by March, 2025.
This is yet another blatant attack on gun owners, firearm retailers, and our Second Amendment rights, and I have no doubt that the Senate Judiciary Committee will give it the green light. The bigger questions are how much pushback the legislation will receive from the credit card companies themselves, and who will be the first to sue over the requirement once Gavin Newsom signs the bill into law.
Submitted by Aidan Johnston, federal affairs director for Gun Owners of America,
In case you missed it, France entered into a pseudo-civil war this past weekend. Rioters took to the streets, destroyed billions of dollars in local property, violent criminals pulled out their illegal guns, and there was nothing the average disarmed Frenchman could do about it.
These recent riots proved the old adage, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
France has much stricter gun laws than anywhere in the United States. French citizens do not have the individual right to bear arms, nor carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Instead, they have strict regulations for anyone that does want to keep a firearm at home:
- limits on the type and amount of guns and ammo you can own;
- universal background checks; and
- gun registration.
Nevertheless, what began in France as mostly peaceful protests would end with fully automatic weapons and banned “weapons of war” being used to terrorize the streets of France.
Protesters started by burning cars, starting fires, and shooting off fireworks, but soon began using shotguns to shoot out police cameras.
Criminals soon brought out the bigger guns—semiautomatic AK-style firearms. Video footage revealed the criminals shooting directly into the air in the city center—endangering the surrounding area.
Shortly after that, footage surfaced online of protestors with handguns and belt-fed machine guns marching down the street in broad daylight. Terrorized citizens ran and screamed as security alarms blared.
Meanwhile, average French citizens attempted to stand up to the rioters with wooden bats and other improvised weaponry.
France’s gun control did nothing to protect its people.
Criminals dominated the streets. In this short period of civil unrest, thousands were arrested, and more than a billion dollars of damage was done to local businesses—which doesn’t even include schools, town halls, or community centers.
These rioters didn’t care for France’s gun laws. They had illegal firearms—such as banned, fully-automatic belt-fed machine guns.
They took those illegal firearms and shot them in public to wreak havoc—without regard for France’s ban on the public carry of firearms or the safety of the general public.
While armed criminals ignored French gun laws and destroyed cities, Florida’s permitless concealed carry law went into effect.
Anti-gun advocates decried Florida for becoming a “more dangerous state.” Yet, Florida celebrated the weekend in peace while gun-controlled France burned.
The Founding Fathers fostered our well-armed society “for the security of [our] free state.” In other words, the individual Second Amendment right is protected for the common good and helps us keep ourselves, our loved ones, and our nation safe.
For example, during the race riots in Los Angeles, local Korean business owners stood up to criminals by arming their employees and guarding their neighborhoods from the rooftops.
Again, during riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, locals like Kyle Rittenhouse used firearms to patrol local communities, put out fires, offer first aid, and defend themselves from violent criminals.
In the United States, our Second Amendment empowers citizens with the means to stand up to tyranny—whether by an oppressive government, a violent criminal, or a roving gang of bandits during civil unrest.
France’s example has proven that gun control only affects law-abiding citizens.
Criminals won’t give up their guns no matter what gun restrictions the government enacts, and the Second Amendment says that the People shouldn’t have to give up their guns either.
We refuse to sit idly by while bureaucrats or legislators enact “feel good” measures that disarm you and leave you searching for improvised weapons during the next wave of riots.
* * *
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is leading the pack of rabid Democrats prepping to take another stab at passing gun control legislation with the help of suburban women and, believe it or not, Republicans.
Citing mass shootings with no context as to why they are happening, Schumer and the Left continue screaming that something has to be done and that gun rights must be taken away from Americans in the name of safety.
The Hill seems to be in step with the Left on pushing for more gun control, reporting, “At least 10 people were killed in separate shootings in Baltimore, Fort Worth, and Philadelphia over the weekend and July 4, while shootings in Lansing, Mich., and Wichita, Kan., left dozens more injured. The Gun Violence Archive has counted 20 mass shootings across the nation since July 1, leaving 19 people dead and more than 100 injured.”
In the wake of passing gun control measures a year ago, it was, of course, not enough. Now the Left wants further steps taken, Constitution be damned.
“Leader Schumer was proud to have passed a significant bipartisan gun safety bill through the Senate last summer but more must be done. Schumer continues to work with his caucus to find a path forward that can garner enough Republican support and combat the scourge of gun violence, save lives, and bring meaningful change,” Schumer spokesperson Allison Biasotti declared.
Despite the incessant screeching, tearing of hair, and rending of clothes, the prospects for yet mreo gun control are dim, thankfully. However, in an ominous sign, things may be shifting.
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) claims the political dynamic concerning gun control is beginning to shift among GOP voters.
“It’s clear from today’s data — especially the growing incidence of mass shooting events involving high-capacity magazines and assault weapons — that it’s time to consider policy changes,” Frist, sounding more Democrat than Republican, wrote in an op-ed for Forbes where he called for a federal assault weapons ban and expanding background checks for all firearms purchases.
Frist has been beating the gun control drum for a while now.
Then Frist went to The Hill to do an interview claiming that Republican voters’ views of gun control are changing.
“Something is changing over the last three years compared to 20 years ago when I was here. There is a willingness to have civil discussions on what have been highly contentious issues that I didn’t see 15 years ago,” he asserted. “More needs to be done on gun safety today. Something more needs to be done because the overall governance of gun safety is outdated and it’s incomplete.”
The Hill dug up a poll in early May by “All In Together,” a nonprofit women’s civic education group, and “Echelon Insights,” a GOP polling firm, to cite that suburban voters support tougher gun laws. The polling venues appear to be leftist in nature despite the hyping of “Echelon Insights” being a GOP polling firm.
To many, the results do not sound conservative in the least and stretch credibility.
“Forty-two percent of independent women voters said a candidate needed to share their view on guns to get their vote, rating the issue as important as a candidate’s view on abortion and the cost of living,” The Hill reported.
“The poll of 1,227 likely voters also showed that 61 percent of Republican women support restricting the ability to purchase certain types of guns — a far higher percentage than the 41 percent of Republican men who feel that way,” the media outlet continued.
The saving grace here is that so far, discharge petitions to push gun control bills through the House are going nowhere fast. Instead, Democrats are likely to start in the Senate with the push. But it will most likely be dead on arrival in the House.
“Leader Schumer called a special caucus meeting last month solely dedicated to combatting gun violence which produced many good ideas. Now, we’re determining the best path forward that could garner enough Republican support,” a Senate Democratic aide said, according to The Hill.
Minority Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is a weak link in the chain. Fifteen Republicans last year supported the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, including McConnell.
“That is one of the absolute critical reasons for why we have seen this issue change,” Christian Heyne, vice president of policy at Brady Campaign, said. “Suburban women are not only wildly supportive of gun violence prevention policies but we’ve seen numbers that it’s a huge motivator to bring people to the polls. It’s why the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act had such overwhelming majority support.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who played a leading role in negotiating last year’s gun violence legislation, bluntly contends that an assault weapons ban has no chance of passing Congress.
“I don’t think that’s going to happen. And, truthfully, the so-called assault weapons ban — what are they going to do about the millions of semi-automatic rifles that are already out there? I don’t think a prospective ban will have any of the intended effect of the proponents,” he remarked. “Basically what they’re advocating for is confiscation from law-abiding citizens. I’m willing to look at whatever the proposal is but I’m not willing to erode the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
Unbelievably, Frist told The Hill that “a majority of Republicans” support improved “gun safety.”
“It really is having people own guns if they want them and be able to do it in a way that is safe and secure,” he declared.
“The visibility with the increase in shootings, the lethality of the incidents that happen, the numbers of people [killed or injured] make it a real teaching point,” Frist claimed.
