Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Legislators in half a dozen states are considering measures to roll back requirements that gun owners obtain permits and training before carrying concealed weapons, as Republican politicians race to show their support for gun rights ahead of primary and midterm elections this year.
But as the bills progress through state House and Senate chambers, they are running into new and increasingly vocal opposition from an unexpected source: Law enforcement organizations who say allowing more people to carry weapons would add to an already troubling spike in gun crimes.
In the nearly two decades since Alaska became the first state to allow concealed weapons without a permit, 20 others have joined in to scrap their rules. This year, legislators in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Nebraska are considering their own versions.
“When it comes to the Second Amendment in Nebraska, it’s an issue that really hits home,” said state Sen. Tom Brewer, a conservative member of his state’s nonpartisan legislature and the bill’s chief sponsor. “You still have an obligation to have safe operation training. And I think people with any degree of responsibility or intelligence are going to understand that.”
Ohio legislators have already passed a similar bill; Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has not said whether he will sign it.
“It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes. I think that it is not very well thought out for very high populated counties such as Hamilton County,” Ohio’s Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey said in an interview. “To vote for people to be able to concealed carry without a license, without any training, without any documentation, it makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes.”
McGuffey, whose county includes the city of Cincinnati, is one of a handful of prominent law enforcement officials to testify or speak out against the proposed legislation. Gary Wolske, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, wrote an op-ed critical of the law in the Columbus Dispatch.
The sheriff of Lincoln, Neb., testified against his state’s proposed version. In Alabama, the state Sheriffs Association held a press conference outside the statehouse to detail their opposition. Mobile, Ala., Sheriff Sam Cochran last year fired one of his deputies, state Rep. Shane Stringer (R), who introduced the bill in the legislature.
Stringer did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But he told the Alabama Political Reporter last year he was proud of his bill.
“After dedicating my life and career to law enforcement, losing a job because I stand in support of Alabama gun owners is certainly surprising, but nothing will discourage me from defending the constitutional guarantees promised to all of us as American citizens,” Stringer said.
Brewer, the Nebraska senator, said law enforcement is by no means universally opposed to his bill.
“I’ve got 13 counties in my district and every sheriff there supports it,” he said in an interview.
Supporters of the measure call it “constitutional carry.” Opponents and gun safety activists call it “permitless carry.”
“Constitutional carry codifies into law the fundamental right to defend yourself when outside of the home,” said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association (NRA). “Law-abiding Americans should not have to pay additional fees to exercise their fundamental right to defend themselves and their families.”
Opponents of the laws say they would put more weapons on the streets at a time when gun crimes are already on the rise, underscoring law enforcement’s opposition to the bills.
“There are communities across the country that are already really struggling with the crisis of gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun safety organization. “Law enforcement are saying lawmakers are just ignoring their concerns.”
Gun safety groups point to studies published in academic journals and by the National Bureau of Economic Research that show states that weaken firearm permitting systems subsequently experience an increase in homicide and violent crime rates.
“Poor decisionmaking happens, and unfortunately, if you’re carrying a weapon and you make a poor decision in a very elevated and high stress situation, the repercussions and ramifications of that are tremendous,” McGuffey said. “People in the general public don’t understand generally how poorly most people shoot.”
Gun rights supporters point to their own studies to make the case that guns are most frequently used outside the home. Hunter, the NRA spokesperson, highlighted a study showing three-quarters of defensive gun uses occurred outside of a gun owner’s house.
“Self-defense situations can arise anywhere, any time, and without warning,” Hunter said in an email.
Intraparty politics likely increase pressure to approve permitless carry laws for some Republicans. In Ohio, DeWine faces a challenge later this year from ex-Rep. Jim Renacci (R), who has cast himself as a staunch backer of former President Trump ahead of the May 3 primary.
But McGuffey said she would continue to press DeWine to veto the legislation.
“If you oppose it and veto it, Gov. DeWine, you may never know the lives you will save,” McGuffey said. “But if you pass this bill, there’s a great likelihood that you will know the lives you didn’t save. Those names will live in infamy.”
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- By a 55-42 dead-of-night vote, the Washington State House of Representatives has passed a ban on rifle and pistol magazines holding more than 10 cartridges (including magazines for rimfire rifles), causing outrage among Evergreen State grassroots activists who will be looking unseat as many Democrats as possible in the November 2022 election.
Senate Bill 5078 goes to the desk of anti-gun Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, who has already vowed to sign it. Two Democrat House members—Reps. Kirsten Harris-Talley from Seattle and Steve Kirby from Tacoma—voted against the measure, breaking ranks from their majority Democrat colleagues.
The vote came about two weeks after Liberty Park Press published a revealing report about the ineffectiveness of magazine capacity limit that many readers sent to their state lawmakers.
The late-night Friday vote was hailed by anti-gun Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a tweet now posted at the Facebook page of the Washington 2022 Legislative Action Group. The legislation was introduced at Ferguson’s request by Democrat Sen. Marko Liias of Lynnwood.
“Today is the fulfillment of years of hard work from so many,” Ferguson wrote. “More than five years ago, I stood with the parents of shooting victims, legislators, mayors, police chiefs and representatives from faith communities to say enough is enough, and proposed banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in Washington state. Today, our Legislature chose public safety over the gun lobby, and I am deeply appreciative of their service. This policy will save lives and make our communities safer from gun violence.”
But Wade Gaughran, owner of a Bellevue gun range and firearms retail business, reacted bluntly, telling KING News, “There’s no way that an intelligent person is going to look at this law and see that it would stop or limit or change the of any kind of mass shooting.”
He predicted a surge in magazine purchasing, a notion reinforced by an announcement from at least one firm—Palmetto State Armory—announced it will prioritize orders from Washington State residents: “All magazine orders placed from Washington State with Palmetto State Armory with ship out immediately and receive priority over all other orders.”
Dan Mitchell, owner of Vancouver’s Sporting Systems, posted a “Fact Sheet” about the magazine ban, which included a depiction of the state flag with dictatorial overtones.
One activist member of the Legislative Action Group posted this message:
“The only group that can help us and that definitely will help us is the Second Amendment Foundation,” wrote Perry Singh. “They are responsible for all the lawsuits that are successful. We have a US Supreme Court that will side with us. We just need an organization that is serious about bringing lawsuits and there is no organization more serious than the Second Amendment Foundation. If you are not a member you need to join. These guys fund lawsuits and they’re really good at winning. No you won’t get a free duffel bag or a free hat but they will deliver us victories in court that we need badly.”
Another gun rights activist, Ron Fricks, responded with his own observation: “There are a lot of good organizations that support 2A rights. Perry is correct however, the Second Amendment Foundation is the best. They often work in the background, they may not get the press, but they are there getting stuff done. It is better to donate a dollar to them, then to post a million “we will not comply” post on facebook. There are over 600,000 permit holders in WA state. If each of them sent $1, or even better $10 per month to the organization of their choice, it would make a difference. Talk or act, the choice is yours.”
By no small coincidence, just hours before the House vote, SAF on Friday announced the launch of a national outreach effort to remind America’s gun owners that “Gun Rights Depend On You.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb estimated the message—which is already appearing online at the Washington Times, Breitbart, TownHall, Newsmax, BearingArms and Drudge—will reach millions of people. SAF tells gun owners to “Demand the Courts Protect the 2A.”
“It would be a significant step forward in our ongoing outreach effort to educate gun owners that the defense of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms ultimately rests in their hands,” Gottlieb said. “Right now, we have more than 30 active court cases challenging various gun control laws on Second Amendment grounds, in several states, including California, Washington, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. It is our intention to raise public awareness and grab the attention of various courts so these cases don’t end up gathering dust in some perpetual state of ‘pending’ action.”
A federal case challenging a similar ban in California is already seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Nine states and Washington, D.C. have imposed such bans.
According to the Daily Olympian, violations of the new law “would result in a gross misdemeanor, which carries a maximum punishment of 364 days in jail and/or a fine up to $5,000.”
Gun owner reaction over the weekend was nothing short of fury. One gun owner posting at the Legislative Action Facebook page stated, “Today our legislature chose the anti-human rights lobby over public safety. Quit calling them antigun groups. Being able to possess a weapon to defend oneself from criminals and tyrants is a human right.”
Another observed, “This new law shows the depth of stupidity in Olympia. They think that some person hell-bent on killing people will suddenly follow the law because they could get a misdemeanor charge for magazine capacity. That’s insanity.”
Now, Evergreen State gun owners are saying the only cure for such “insanity” will be taking the House, and maybe the State Senate, away from Democrats this fall. How well that effort does will depend upon whether the anger now being expressed translates into voter turnout in vulnerable legislative districts this fall.
Electable candidates must be recruited, campaigns must be formed and financed, and gun owners will have to register and vote, and all of that involves more than—as Fricks noted above—posting a million “we will not comply” messages on social media.
Gun owners in Virginia did it last November when nobody expected they would. Now it’s Washington’s turn.
A State of the Union address by a Democratic president would not be complete without a shout-out to the anti-gun agenda.
On Tuesday night, President Joe Biden fulfilled that obligation, in part, by reprising a silly and rhetorically ineffective refrain he used in the past.
“And folks, ban assault weapons with high-capacity magazines that hold up to a hundred rounds,” exclaimed Biden. “You think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests?”
You may recall that Biden used the same “deer wearing Kevlar vests” line before a limited, joint session of Congress, last Spring. It was a dumb thing to say back then and it seems even dumber now given the global state of affairs.
Case in point:
While the 2A protects the rights of hunters, that is not the reason why the Founders and Framers included it in the Constitution, as we’ve covered before. The 2A was enshrined because it’s a safeguard against tyranny.
What Biden and his gun-grabbing minions don’t understand or refuse to consider is that ARs with drum mags are kryptonite to despots and dictators. Sure, whitetail deer don’t don Kevlar vests, but invading forces do. And that’s precisely why a nation of sovereign individuals need ‘em.
During the State of the Union, Biden also echoed bromides about cracking down on “ghost guns,” passing “universal background checks” and repealing the “liability shield that makes gun makers the only industry that can’t be sued.”
Homemade guns are not the threat anti-gunners make them out to be and there’s little evidence that universal background checks will reduce crime. Not to mention the fact that the claim about gun industry immunity is a bald-faced lie. Even CNN admitted such:
But predictably, those working to destroy 2A rights lapped it up.
“During his first year in office, President Biden has led the strongest gun safety administration we’ve seen, and this speech is further proof that he remains fully committed to keeping Americans safe from gun violence,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica.
“Going forward, there are more critical steps the administration and Congress can take to save lives — including revitalizing ATF, using executive powers to crack down on unlicensed gun sellers, and strengthening background checks — and we look forward to working with them every step of the way,” he continued.
Looking ahead, there’s zero doubt that the Biden administration, with the help of Bloomberg’s Everytown, will continue to assault one’s right to keep and bear arms. It’s up to us to stop them.
*
According to multiple social media outlets, home gunsmiths looking to go through the legal process of building suppressors are being denied their applications by the ATF. Both the American Suppressor Association (ASA) and the law firm, Prince Law, are investigating these allegations.
“Numerous reports are emerging that the ATF is categorically denying Form 1 applications to make and register a suppressor,” said the ASA. “We’re working with our colleagues [the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition] to gather the facts and address this head-on.”
“The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. (FRAC) was created by industry leaders and its stakeholders to improve business conditions for the firearms industry by ensuring that firearms regulatory agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), operate in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner,” says FRAC.
Dillon Harris, speaking for Prince Law, said “I have continued to be in contact with ATF attempting to gain clarity on this issue.” A number of these denials appear to involve suppressor-making kits sold by Diversified Machine, which the ATF shut down this January.
“As it currently stands, ATF’s apparent position is that Form 1 silencers manufactured using ‘silencer parts’ from Diversified Machine are contraband and must be surrendered to a local field office,” explained Harris. “I have confirmed with some of our local field offices in Pennsylvania that this is ATF’s position as they are aware of it, and they are prepared to received these items.”
“If you would like to speak with an attorney regarding your specific circumstances or how you should proceed, contact us today,” Harris said.
SEE ALSO: Who Can Own a Suppressor (Or Hunt with One) in the United States?
“It is a violation of federal law to manufacture, receive, transport, and/or deliver a silencer not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) (26 USC §§ 5861(a),(d),(e),(f), and (j)),” said the ATF.
“The possession of a silencer (to include silencer parts and kits) sold by Diversified Machine is a violation of federal law,” the agency said. “Only special occupational taxpayer (SOT) manufacturers, importers and makers may lawfully register a silencer in the NFRTR, and they may only do so if it is registered prior to the importation, making or transferring of the item (26 USC § 5841).”
Any individuals who receive a denial letter from the ATF are encouraged to get legal counsel as soon as possible.
Stay tuned for updates.
I’m baffled to have received a few messages from readers, suggesting that my article yesterday titled “Self-defense under a justice system that’s no longer on your side” went too far in suggesting that, in certain jurisdictions, we might need to be very careful to leave no evidence behind if we’re forced to defend ourselves, because the law enforcement and justice system authorities there are biased towards the lawless and against the law-abiding.
I don’t think it went too far at all. In fact, I think I pulled my punches too much, if people are still laboring under the misapprehension that the rule of law is still intact throughout these United States. I have news for them. It isn’t.
Please consider the impact of far-left-wing, progressive District Attorneys (DA’s) that have been elected to office in various urban centers (usually with the assistance of massive funding from George Soros and organizations that distribute his support). Consider Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; New York, NY; St. Louis, MO . . . it’s a long list. In those jurisdictions, how many rioters and violent demonstrators have been arrested by police, only to be released without charge by local DA’s? You can research the news reports and other sources for yourselves. I’m sure that by now, the total must run well into four figures across the country. They’re sending a very public message. If you do something illegal, but politically correct, you’ll get off scot-free.
Police forces across the country, particularly those in riot-plagued areas, are losing officers hand over fist as they hand in their retirement papers, or resign and seek employment in areas that appreciate law and order. However, the left-wing authorities in such areas are making it as difficult as possible for them to do so. In some cases, they’re trying to assert their authority over neighboring law enforcement agencies as well, to ensure that they control all police activity affecting their residents.
The latest example comes from Seattle, which is a city so large that it effectively controls King County in Washington state through its voters. Many Seattle PD police officers have resigned, and some have joined the King County Sheriff’s Office, where they continue to serve the people of their communities – but out from under the control of SPD and those in authority over it. Now comes news that the left-leaning King County Council is to ask voters in a referendum to give it greater authority over the Sheriff’s Office, including making the incumbent an appointed rather than an elected leader, abolishing checks and balances that prevent the Sheriff’s Office being politicized, and ignoring the role of the sheriff as defined in state law. It’s very clear why they’re doing this. The thought of a law enforcement agency that’s outside their control is anathema to them. They want to make sure that the KCSO becomes as politicized as the SPD is already. Would you feel “protected and served” in King County if they get their way? I know for sure I wouldn’t.
I agree that many of our police forces have overstepped the mark, and need to be reined in. I’ve said as much in these pages often enough. However, the “bad cops” who do that are, I think, outnumbered by the “good cops” who want to maintain law and order, and in doing so serve the communities where they live. How are those cops being treated by the authorities? In most cases, they’re being described publicly as part of the problem. Talk of “defunding the police” is a slap in the face to their law enforcement authority, and emboldens those who hate them. No, hate is not too strong a word. When BLM activists chant, on camera, “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon!”, I submit there’s only one way to understand those words – and it’s not as an invitation to a peaceful neighborhood game of tiddlywinks.
Progressive, far-left-wing DA’s are openly siding with anti-police activists these days. Just look at Philadelphia, where the Soros-supported and -supporting DA has threatened criminal charges against federal law enforcement officers that the President is sending to his city. He’s trying to intimidate them before they even arrive. Look at the reaction of various progressive, far-left-wing mayors who’ve protested the (entirely lawful) actions of Federal officers in defending Federal property against rioters in their cities.
In many ways, such “in-justice system” officials are fouling their own nests, and the jurisdictions where they operate. Consider St. Louis, where it’s emerged that a senior prosecutor in the DA’s office actually instructed a police crime lab to tamper with evidence. He then allegedly used the altered evidence to bring charges. That’s a felony under color of law – but did he care? Like hell he did! If I were a defense attorney, I’d be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of calling for the dismissal of all charges against my client(s) on the grounds of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Whether or not that’ll happen is up to local courts, of course. One wonders how objective and non-partisan they are. I suspect we’ll soon see. Meanwhile, I can only refer readers to my article yesterday. Do these events in St. Louis help to illustrate why I wrote it? They should.
Consider a pro-police rally in Denver, CO last weekend that was attacked by anti-police activists. It’s now emerged that the police commander on scene gave a “stand down” order and allowed the attack to continue, rather than protect the peaceful demonstrators against the thugs. Impartial policing? Protecting and serving? Law and order? Well, so much for that . . .
Michelle Malkin was one of the speakers at that rally. She comments:
The America you grew up in is not the America we live in now.
One nation under God? Ha.
Land of the free? Ha.
Domestic tranquility? Ha.
Equal protection under the law? Ha.
The right to bear arms? Ha.
Freedom of speech? Association? Peaceable assembly? Ha. Ha. Ha.
It’s not “socialism” or “communism” under which we suffer. Our dangerously chaotic, selectively oppressive predicament is more accurately described as “anarcho-tyranny.”
. . .
The toxic combination of “pandemic panic” and “George Floyd derangement syndrome” has thoroughly destroyed the home of the brave. It is a paradise for the depraved and dictatorial.
Anarcho-tyranny is how hoodlums can toss statues into rivers with impunity, while citizens disgusted by Black Lives Matter street graffiti are charged with “hate crimes”—as David Nelson and Nicole Anderson in Martinez, California, were by a George Soros-funded district attorney two weeks ago.
Anarcho-tyranny is how rioters can shut down highways and byways on a whim without fear of arrest, while commuters trying to escape the window-smashing barbarians obstructing traffic are charged with “assault”—as poor Jennifer Watson of Denver, Colorado, was this week.
. . .
Anarcho-tyranny is how 1,000 black militia members can take over the streets in Georgia and point their guns at motorists as they demand reparations, while white citizen militia members in Idaho, Utah and New Mexico have been smeared publicly as racists and face injunctions for peacefully defending their neighborhoods.
Where do the police stand in this regime? It pains me to say it, but those of us who have backed the blue so loyally and vocally can no longer do so under the assumption that the blue will back us.
. . .
It was rank-and-file cops in Denver who watched as my patriotic friends and I tried to hold a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day this past Sunday and were besieged by Black Lives Matter and antifa thugs who had declared that their sole intent in invading our permitted celebration was to “shut us down.” I livestreamed the chaos as pro-police attendees were beaten, including the organizer Ron MacLachlan, who was bloodied in the face and head just a few feet from me by black-masked animals. One antifa actor wielded her collapsible baton just inches from me.
. . .
If we had brandished or used our weapons in self-defense, we’d be facing felony assault charges—as armed citizen Steven Baca is in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the hands of another Soros-subsidized district attorney.
If any of our men had tried to peel the female antifa thugs off of MAGA ladies who were assaulted, they’d be charged with battery, too—just like Baca.
. . .
So the message is loud and clear. When push comes to bloody shove in end-stage America, under the rule of the anarcho-tyrants, we, the law-abiding, are the enemy. Those in uniform sworn to protect and serve will turn their backs on us because their bosses don’t answer to the public. They protect and serve the mob.
There’s more at the link.
Our justice system has, in far too many jurisdictions, become an Augean stable of corruption, disrespect for the law and partisan political prosecutions. In some cases, District Attorney’s offices may be so far gone that they can’t be cleaned up at all. The only solution may be to fire the entire staff en masse, and start from the beginning with new, non-partisan appointees.
Meanwhile, those of us who are law-abiding citizens and refuse to be intimidated by thugs, rioters and criminals, find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. The letter of the law, and its spirit as traditionally understood, give us the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property (subject to greater or lesser restrictions, depending on where we live). The new, far-left-wing, progressive administrators of our justice system don’t give a damn about that. They want to intimidate us into abandoning our legal rights and allowing the mob to ride rough-shod over us.
If we refuse to permit or tolerate that, we will be targeted by such officials. They’ll try to make examples of us to intimidate others. Witness what’s happening to the McCloskeys in St. Louis. Their actions were entirely justifiable under law – so much so that the State’s Attorney-General has filed suit to quash the charges brought against them by the local DA. However, the DA didn’t care about the law, only about radicalizing the system of justice she administers and making the McCloskeys into an example to all those who object.
I repeat what I said in conclusion yesterday, and urge you to read that article in full if you haven’t already done so.
By observing [the] precautions [that I recommended], law-abiding citizens fearing persecution from a law enforcement system that’s become biased and one-sided can help to make unjust, partisan charges against them much harder to bring, and even more difficult to prove. Sadly, in this day and age, in some jurisdictions, that’s no longer a far-fetched, remote possibility.
If you live in a jurisdiction dominated by such left-wing parasites, you need to very seriously consider leaving before it’s too late. Some of them are, I think, already too far gone to save. Among them I’d include all the cities I cited in the third paragraph of this article, plus a large number of others. Is your life worth the risk that remaining there poses? Only you can answer that question. In my case and my wife’s, we voted with our feet, as have many others of our acquaintance. If you think you can’t afford to leave, due to lower salaries and other inconveniences, I can only ask . . . what makes you think you can afford to stay?
Peter
They’re not exactly what we might call “moderate Democrats” by any stretch of the imagination.
Unsurprisingly, they’ve had issues with gun rights in this country, as the archives of their website clearly illustrate.
But that was then, this is now. In the now, we have Russia invading Ukraine.
As noted, the Ukrainian government handed out a pile of AK-47s to any citizen who wanted one to fight the Russian invasion.
It seems OccupyDemocrats is now in support of armed citizens.
So now citizens with guns are a good thing?
How long ago did we hear from people like them telling us that our AR-15s would be useless in fending off a modern army? That they’d be ineffective against tanks and jet fighters?
Now, Ukrainians are facing a modern army with tanks and jet fighters and OccupyDemocrats are tripping over themselves to praise armed citizens.
It’s absolutely hilarious to see.
I’m not alone in thinking that, either.
Based Zelensky. If only Ukraine had something like the 2nd Amendment before this. It might have made Putin think twice.
— Christina Pushaw #BuckTheCDC 🐊🚛 (@ChristinaPushaw) February 25, 2022
Pushaw is completely correct, of course. If Ukraine had a Second Amendment, people would have been armed long before and would have known how to use those guns. The Ukrainian government could have more easily provided additional training so they could integrate into the defense plan without needing to worry about arming them.
But they didn’t and so they ended up handing out AK-47s like free pizza.
It almost made me wish I were Ukrainian for a minute there.
Of course, OccupyDemocrats doesn’t stand for all Democrats. Frankly, too many of the things they say are too extreme for most Democrats to stomach. However, if the more extreme wing of the party is celebrating armed citizens, one could only assume some of the more mainstream members of the party are at least fine with such a development.
If so, though, why do they support armed citizens half a world away and not here in the United States?
Look, what we’re seeing in Ukraine is part of why the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment in place. Even with a standing army, there’s always the possibility of someone bigger storming across the borders. They wanted us to have the means to defend this nation from foreign aggression.
Ukraine didn’t have that and so they had to scramble. They likely didn’t get enough guns in civilian hands to make enough of a difference, not at this phase, at least. They simply didn’t have time because they thought of citizens as being untrustworthy to possess such weapons.
Now, they’re regretting that decision.
Yet now it seems Democrats are seeing what happened, praising it, while still working to take some guns with superficial similarities out of our hands because we can’t be trusted.
To call it hypocritical is something of an understatement.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the results of a 5-day sweep led by the California Department of Justice, or DOJ, that targeted 51 prohibited persons. The state arrested 13 people and seized 114 firearms and 49,148 rounds of ammunition during the sweep.
The sweep was focused on Los Angeles County using California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, or APPS.
“California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System is a critical tool that makes the work of cracking down on illegal gun ownership and possession possible,” said Bonta. “Last week, using APPS and working together with our law enforcement partners in Southern California, our teams removed 114 firearms from individuals who are no longer legally allowed to own or possess firearms or ammunition.”
“Collaborative efforts like these increase our success in taking guns out of potentially dangerous hands, reducing gun violence, and keeping our neighborhoods safe,” said Bonta.
“A great display of local and state partners coordinating and cooperating to ensure prohibited persons aren’t in possession of firearms,” said LAPD Chief Michel Moore. “The LAPD supports and maintains a relationship with our local partners as well as California DOJ to accomplish this mission on a daily basis.”
The California DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms, or BOF, worked with officers representing the Azusa Police Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, the LAPD, the Pasadena Police Department, the Pomona Police Department, the Los Angeles County Probation Department, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
“We are thankful to all the partner agencies of the operation and proud to have been a part of getting dangerous guns off the streets,” said Los Angeles County Probation Chief Deputy Karen Fletcher. “Working together, we helped make Los Angeles safer thanks to all those who put their lives on the line daily and the hard-working members of our probation team.”
“Pasadena Police Department is excited about partnering with the California Department of Justice in an effort to stop gun violence,” said Interim Pasadena Police Chief Cheryl Moody. “This collaboration will certainly benefit those communities most impacted by individuals who illegally possess or use firearms.”
Following leads from 439 cases, agents and officers seized 55 handguns, 19 rifles, 15 shotguns, 17 “assault weapons” and eight “ghost guns” in addition to ammunition and magazines. The sweep follows an earlier operation in the Bay Area that netted 30 firearms, resulting in eight arrests.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing legislation that would open the floodgates for frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry.
During a press conference at Del Mar Fairgrounds last Friday, Newsom spoke about his mission to go on the “offensive” by allowing private citizens, municipalities, and the state attorney general to sue gun makers and sellers for “reckless behavior.”
“California will continue to lead the fight to end gun violence with bold action to tackle the national crisis putting millions of Californians at risk,” said Gov. Newsom.
“It’s time to go on the offensive with new measures that empower individuals to hold irresponsible and negligent gun industry actors to account, crack down on shameful advertising that targets our kids and more,” he continued. “This is not about attacking law-abiding gun owners – it’s about stopping the tragic violence ravaging communities across the country.”
Per a press release from the governor’s office, the three bills being prioritized are as follows:
- AB 1594 would allow individuals and the Attorney General to sue firearm manufacturers and sellers
- AB 2571 would prohibit the marketing of certain categories of weapons to children
- AB 1621 would tighten ghost gun restrictions
Media outlets are covering AB 1594 as a copycat of a controversial Texas law that allows any private citizen to sue an abortion provider even if that individual did not receive an abortion. Newsom threatened to propose such a law after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to strike down the Texas policy.
In fact, the California law is modeled more closely after another equally bad New York law that allows gun makers to be sued for creating a “public nuisance.” That law has come under fire from the National Shooting Sports Foundation as a blatant attempt to “impose on the firearm industry a ‘death by a thousand cuts,’” said Lawrence Keane of the NSSF.
With a veto-proof supermajority in both chambers, it’s likely that Legilsture will move expeditiously to enact the proposed bills. Stay tuned for updates.