Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

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

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

The View Doesn’t Appreciate a Right

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing irresponsible or unlawful about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, please submit comments against this proposal.

 

 

 

 

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

Sure Enough!

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

Greener Pastures – The Reason Behind S&W’s Tennessee Move By Larry Keane

Smith & Wesson 686 Logo

The decision to move a flagship manufacturer isn’t easy. It’s also not hard when legislators target industry for destruction. IMG Jim Grant

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The decision to move a flagship manufacturer isn’t easy. It’s also not hard when legislators target industry for destruction.

That’s the case with Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., which recently announced it will move its headquarters and a large portion of its manufacturing from Springfield, Mass., to Marysville, Tenn. The company has been rooted in western Massachusetts since it was founded in 1852. In 2023, it will open the doors to its new manufacturing facility and headquarters nearly 900 miles south.

That’s not an easy decision. The company will invest hundreds of millions to build a new production plant. It will consolidate warehousing from Missouri to the Tennessee location. That’s where Smith & Wesson will transition the production of semiautomatic pistols and rifles, while revolvers will continue to be produced in Massachusetts. That move will require transferring 750 jobs.

“This has been an extremely difficult and emotional decision for us, but after an exhaustive and thorough analysis, for the continued health and strength of our iconic company, we feel that we have been left with no other alternative,” explained Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson’s President and CEO in a press release.

Tightening Grip

In other words, it was about corporate survival. Massachusetts has become increasingly hostile to gun owners and gun manufactures. The state has among the strictest gun control laws in the nation. State lawmakers banned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in 1998. State Attorney General Maura Healey expanded that crackdown on lawful firearm ownership with a 2016 Enforcement Notice that alleged firearm retailers were violating the state’s law by making small tweaks to certain firearms.

The Enforcement Notice warned retailers those so-called “copies” or “duplicates” of the firearms specifically listed in the state law were illegal for sale, but that notice was vague and NSSF, along with two Bay State retailers, challenged the notice in court. Attorney General Healey agreed to clarify the notice after two years of legal wrangling.

This was an example of the hostility state authorities held against firearm industry members, but it was a status quo. Smith & Wesson could manufacturer their popular M&P 15 line of MSRs, but they weren’t available for sale to law-abiding citizens in their own state.

The decision point came when lawmakers directly targeted the firearm manufacturer’s ability to do business. Dual bills were filed in the state legislature (HD 4192/SD 2588) that would prohibit firearm manufacturers from manufacturing MSRs. The proposal includes banning so-called “assault weapons” and magazines capable of holding 10 or more cartridges.

“We are under attack by the state of Massachusetts,” Smith told reporters. The move is anticipated to cost $125 million “that I didn’t want to spend.”

Smith explained in the press release that the proposed Massachusetts legislation would prevent Smith & Wesson from manufacturing MSRs, despite the fact they are lawfully owned by citizens in 43 other states. There, they’re used for lawful purposes by law-abiding owners daily, including uses for recreational target shooting, hunting and self-defense.

That would have also meant Smith & Wesson would have been forced to sacrifice products that comprise 60 percent of their reported $1.1 billion revenue. There are over 20 million MSRs in circulation today and they are the most popular selling centerfire rifle on the market.

Strictly Business

“Honestly, we know we could have defeated it this session,” Smith explained to media. “But it will be back the next session and the session after that. I just can’t operate with that big a risk hanging over the company. We only started this process once the bill was filed. Then and only then.”

Smith & Wesson expects it will be two more years before their firearms bear Tennessee markings, but they’re not the only one to leave. Troy Industries, also a manufacturer of MSRs and parts, announced their own relocation earlier this year. Beretta U.S.A. moved manufacturing from Accokeek, Md., to Gallatin, Tenn., and Barrett Firearms is headquartered in Murfreesboro, Tenn. Other companies left their traditional home states for friendlier business climates when it became clear legislatures became hostile to their industry.

Massachusetts’ lawmaker attacks on Smith & Wesson were purely political. They don’t like firearms and even after they successfully banned their own citizens from owning the MSRs made in their state, they attempted to export their gun control by jeopardizing a leader in the firearm industry. Not so with Tennessee.

“Our pro-business reputation, skilled workforce, and commitment to the Second Amendment make Tennessee an ideal location for firearms manufacturing,” said Republican Gov. Bill Lee in a press statement.  “We welcome Smith & Wesson to The Volunteer State and are proud this U.S.-based brand has chosen to relocate from Massachusetts. Thanks for your significant investment in Blount County and for creating 750 new jobs”

Smith & Wesson’s response isn’t political at all. It’s just good business.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

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

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

What Guns Can I Buy In New York?! (AR15s)

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

5 Guns The Government Doesn’t Want You To Have… – I know, I know but better late than never!

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

True enough!

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

The Brown Bess

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

And now the Fight advances now to a higher level!

OCTOBER 1, 2021

WHY GUN BUYERS SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IRS PROPOSAL TO MONITOR PURCHASES ABOVE $600

By Larry Keane

The Biden administration’s plan to fund a multitrillion-dollar spending plan includes having the IRS snoop into every American’s bank account to examine transactions that are $600 or greater. This alarming proposal has implications far beyond the government looking to extract tax money. It is also a potential way for the Biden administration to track who is purchasing firearms.

Treasury Sec. Janet Yellin was on Capitol Hill defending the Biden administration’s proposal.

“I think it’s important to recognize that we have a tax gap that’s estimated at $7 trillion over the next decade,” Sec. Yellen said, according to a Fox Business report. “That is taxes that are due and are not being paid to the government that deprive us of the resources that we need to do critical investments to make America more productive and competitive.”

Not Just Taxes, But Purchases

The Biden administration proposes that banks and credit unions report every transaction at the $600 threshold to counter tax cheats. That’s got privacy advocates howling. It is especially concerning for the firearm industry and its customers that the government would collect information that could potentially include firearm purchases. While many firearms sold might not meet that $600 reporting requirement, a significant number would. It threatens to become a back-door gun registry.

Sec. Yellen balked at the notion the government is intruding on financial privacy, explaining the IRS already has “a wealth of information about individuals,” citing examples such as the W-2 form filed for a person’s job, but said the IRS needs more information on “higher-income individuals who have opaque sources of income … not low-income people.”

U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) grilled Sec. Yellin over the proposal in a Senate hearing.

“There are obvious privacy concerns for all Americans here and this represents a dramatic new regulatory burden for community banks and credit unions in Wyoming and elsewhere,” Sen. Lummis said. “Do you distrust the American people so much that you need to know when they bought a couch? Or a cow?”

Or a gun.

Trust the IRS?

The proposal is being met with fierce resistance, as it should. The IRS has already proven to be untrustworthy of personal information. The agency has been weaponized for political overreach before. The Department of Justice (DOJ) settled a lawsuit in 2017 brought by dozens of conservative groups after the IRS unfairly scrutinized the tax exempt status of organizations based on political leanings under the Obama administration, while President Joe Biden was vice president. That was the 2013 scandal in which then-Acting Director of Exempt Organizations at IRS, Lois Lerner remained defiant when called before Congress.

It’s also ironic that the Biden administration is prying into Americans’ private expenditures when it just surfaced that President Biden avoided paying $500,000 from earnings on speaking tours and book sales prior to his White House election.

Congressional Opposition

The attempt to track Americans’ spending on items $600 or more, which would include firearm purchases, isn’t sitting well with banks or lawmakers. The American Bankers Association wrote to both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that the proposal, “…implicates customer privacy and data security on a massive scale…” The letter added that the IRS already collects massive amounts of data it is unable to manage.

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, published a column in The Hill, ripping the proposed reporting requirements as reckless and ripe for abuse.

“Given the IRS’s track record on data security, including a 2015 data breach, tasking the agency to secure additional taxpayer information from nearly every American is a complicated and hazardous gamble, and one the federal government isn’t historically capable of winning.”

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) introduced the Tax Gap Reform and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Enforcement Act in both chambers as S. 2721 and H.R. 5206. Rep. Brady said in addition to getting a true assessment of the IRS so-called tax gap, “This bill also protects taxpayers from IRS targeting based on their political or religious beliefs and closes loopholes that risk leaking private taxpayer returns.”

Sen. Crapo added, “This legislation places important guardrails around IRS funding to protect taxpayers’ rights and privacy.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) introduced S. 2857, the Banking Secrecy Act, to prohibit any Federal agency from requiring financial institutions to report on the financial transactions of their customers. Sen. Tuberville told media he wants Americans to pay their fair share of taxes, “But I don’t want the federal government, ‘big brother,’ to be harassing private citizens.”

The prospect of a government agency monitoring every $600 expense is deeply concerning. When that prospect is also being brought by an administration bent on enacting gun control by any means and proposed for an agency with a poor track record of securing taxpayer privacy, it is a recipe for disaster. The IRS has no place delving into Americans’ wallets, especially when it is a means to access what is in their gun safe.

 

 

 

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops Darwin would of approved of this!

Why does the Phrase “You reap what you sow” come to mind?

Defunding disaster: Austin Police no longer responding to ‘non-life threatening’ 911 calls

Department suffering from acute staffing shortages after Austin City Council defunded police budget by $150 million.
Austin, Texas

The Austin Police Department is warning it won’t be responding to non-life threatening 911 calls.

Starting Friday, Austin’s sworn police officers will no longer be responding in person to non-emergency calls because of severe staffing shortages, APD announced.

The announcement comes after the Harris County Sheriff’s Deputies Organization in Houston warned residents that if they were “robbed, raped or shot” to “hold their breath and pray” because they might not have the personnel to respond.

The Austin no-response announcement includes vehicle collisions with no injuries and burglaries no longer in progress or where the suspect has fled the scene. Instead of calling 911, residents are being told to call 311 to file a non-emergency police report.

An APD spokesperson told Fox News that while a sworn police officer might not respond in person, a civilian officer, like a crime scene technician, might.

The department “regularly reviews response policies and procedures to ensure APD prioritizes calls with an immediate threat to life or property over non-emergency calls for service,” she said.

The staffing shortages and inability to respond to non-life threatening 911 calls is a direct result of the Austin City Council’s defunding of the APD last year, cutting $150 million of its budget, and other changes that were implemented affecting how the department operates.

“As a result of a recent review of APD’s patrol COVID mitigation protocols initiated in May 2020, recent staffing challenges and aligning with the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force patrol response recommendations, APD will change call routing and response for non-emergency calls for service effective October 1, 2021,” she said.

Austin Police Association President Ken Casaday told Fox News that APD hasn’t been able to hire new officers because it hasn’t been able to have a police academy for nearly two years. As a result, there aren’t enough patrol officers to respond to non-emergency calls.

“Probably about 95% of the time our shifts don’t meet minimum staffing … and that is the reason they’ve started cutting back on what types of calls are answered,” Casaday said. “It’s not optimal. It’s not providing a quality service to the community. But the community also needs to understand that we’re under a dire staffing crisis.”

After the City Council cut funding last year, by July, response times to 911 calls were 20-30 minutes longer on average, and the homicide rate is at a level that “we’ve never really seen here before,” interim chief Joseph Chacon said at the time. Cutting APD funds by $150 million resulted in canceling multiple cadet classes and disbanding multiple units responsible for responding to DWIs, domestic violence calls, stalking, and criminal interdiction.

The APD has been losing 15 to 20 officers a month, with many quitting and retiring and not enough new recruits to replace them. The department has projected 235 vacancies by May 2022, and 340 vacancies by May 2023.

while the APD has recently begun to resume cadet classes, it will take a while to get new officers on the streets. The city is paying more than $10,000 per day, with a maximum of $580,000 per year, to Joyce James Consulting to provide an “anti-racism” Critical Race Theory-based curriculum for a “reimagining public safety campaign.”

While the Houston sheriff’s organization sued Harris County over a lack of funding and noncompliance with regulations, a bipartisan activist group, Save Austin Now, took another approach. It initiated its second successful ballot initiative this year to allow voters to restore police funding.

“Austin doesn’t feel as safe recently. Because it isn’t,” the group argued as part of its campaign. “We’ve seen a series of city policy decisions over the last two years that have led to a surge in both violent crime and property crime against Austinites. A 300% increase in murders this year. A double-digit increase in property crimes such as burglaries and car jackings.”

“As Austin’s crime rate has soared, the federal government has taken note of it and sent in resources to help stabilize the chaos,” it adds. “But we cannot rely on the federal government’s Operation Undaunted to provide us with the local resources we’ll need to fight this trend: We’ll have to do it ourselves.”

Their petition received the required number of votes and its proposed public safety law will be on the November ballot. Among other things, it includes adding officers to APD according to the nationally recognized “Safe City Standard,” which stipulates two police officers hired for every 1,000 citizens.