Categories
A Victory! All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Poll: Americans Not Buying Into Democrats’ Anti-Gun Panic Rhetoric BY STEPHEN KRUISER

An assortment of rifles hang in a gun shop on Friday, Feb. 19, 2021, in Salem, Ore. So many people are buying guns in Oregon these days that the state police are often unable to complete background checks in time, allowing the sales to proceed if the deadline isn’t met. A handful of Democratic lawmakers have now put forward a bill in the Oregon Legislature that would close this loophole. (AP Photo/Andrew Selsky)
Democrats Still Can’t Make Gun Laws More Popular

The anti-gun lobby is loud, well-funded, and a darling of the mainstream media. If someone were to awaken from a long coma and begin paying attention to the gun conversation in the American MSM, he or she would undoubtedly believe that most Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of much stricter gun laws or even abolishing the Second Amendment altogether.

That’s not really what is going on in the real world, which is a place that the MSM doesn’t travel to very often.

The anti-gun lobby is just one of the many puppet masters pulling the strings of the empty vessel occupying the Oval Office. They made their intentions known quite early and leaned on Biden to do something quickly. He obeyed his masters via executive action earlier this month.  He had to do it that way because federal gun control legislation rarely gets passed (more on that in a moment).

Despite the overwhelming rhetoric machine that the anti-2A people have, a new poll shows that the American public’s taste for new and stricter laws has dropped a bit.

The Reload:

Support for stricter gun laws fell seven points in the new Pew Research poll. Agreement with the idea that gun laws are about right or too strict rose by the same amount. Overall, Americans are split nearly down the middle with 53 percent supporting stricter gun laws and 46 percent opposing them.

Support for stricter gun laws is down from 2019 and 2018, settling near the levels it was at in 2017. The five specific gun-control proposals included in the poll all saw a drop in support.

The deep division in American’s opinions on guns combined with the relative stability of that divide poses a problem for efforts by Senate Democrats and President Joe Biden to pass new gun-control legislation. Despite the return of mass shootings after a pandemic-induced pause and repeated calls from Democrats and gun-control advocates, Americans are less likely to support tightening gun laws than they were before the pandemic began. With Democrats’ gun-control proposals already facing an uphill battle on Capitol Hill, falling support for further restricting gun ownership is likely to add to the difficulty.

 

 

 

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

Nevada Assembly Passes ‘Ghost Gun’ Bill

UPDATE: Assembly Bill 286 passed along party lines at the Nevada Legislature on Tuesday night, 26-16.
Friday, April 9th 2021, 3:42 PM PDT
Updated: 

UPDATE: Assembly Bill 286 passed along party lines at the Nevada Legislature on Tuesday night, 26-16.

It will now head to the Senate.

A judiciary committee passed a bill prohibiting ‘ghost guns,’ — preventing people from possessing, selling, purchasing or transporting firearms not imprinted with a serial number.

The bill, AB286, passed with an amendment in the Nevada Legislature on Friday afternoon.

The bill also prevents a person from having a firearm on a ‘covered premises’ without the written consent of the owner of the premises. The bill also outlines how owners can post signs warning gun owners about restrictions on their property, and exceptions to violations.

A ‘covered premises’ was defined as:

– A club venue
– A golf course
– A licensed gaming establishment
– A motion picture theater
– A place of religious worship
– A public accommodation facility
– A shopping mall
– A stadium, arena, concert hall, theater, showroom or any facility used for live entertainment or sporting event

To read the entire bill, see the document below.

 

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

PERSPECTIVES from Theo Sparks

Most of us are trying to seek reason or rationale, some sort of sense of why behind the horrific mass shootings that are sadly becoming an almost daily event. I am a security consultant, it is my job to identify threats and to do something about making them go away. For an abstract threat like modern terrorism or this latest human threat vector, the first step is to understand the phenomenon, and putting things into perspective is one approach. Please read on:
In 2018, the most recent year for which data are available as of 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reports 38,390 deaths by firearm, of which 24,432 were by suicide and 13,958 were homicides, a percentage of which were law enforcement and self-defense related killings. These 13,938 homicides can largely be attributed – directly or indirectly – to the drug war that has been going on in our country for at least the past fifty years.
According to the FBI, there were 27 “active shooter” incidents in the U.S. in 2018, resulting in 213 casualties including 85 deaths.
Also according to the CDC, in 2018 there were 619,591 abortions. Around 1 to 2% of these (about 6000 per year) are late term abortion, where the baby is killed as it comes out the birth canal.
619,591 deaths due to abortion versus 13,958 gun homicides is about a 44:1 ratio. In other words, for every person killed in a gun homicide (including law enforcement and self-defense related killings), forty four innocent lives are taken deliberately and legally. 6000+/- late term abortion deaths versus 85 active shooter deaths is an even more lopsided ratio, about 70:1. In other words, for every one person who perishes in the horror of an active shooter event, seventy innocents are killed in an even more horrific fashion, right at the moment of their entry into this world.
An active shooter is an individual who has lost his humanity, has reduced himself to a soulless killing machine – as insane a concept as this is, I almost get this. As for the methodical killing of the unborn – the most perfect and innocent of us all – I don’t know how the doctors do it … I don’t know how they maintain their sanity, their humanity …
Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants

John Whitehead

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand

Rule by brute force.

That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our nation.

SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Homeowners finding their homes under siege by police out to confiscate lawfully-owned guns. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.

The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.

We are approaching critical mass.

The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

In effect, you will disappear.

Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.

We have seen this come to pass under past presidents with their use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements.

President Biden’s long list of executive orders, executive actions, proclamations and directives is just more of the same: rule by fiat.

Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.

Nineteen states and Washington DC have red flag laws on their books.

That number is growing.

As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.

In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

We’ve been down this road before.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.

It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

All you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutterdrive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social mediaappear mentally ill, serve in the militarydisagree with a law enforcement officialcall in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

To that noxious mix, add in a proposal introduced under the Trump Administration and being considered by Biden for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

Connect the dots.

Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata. Finally, add in the local police agencies and SWAT teams that are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield and trained in the tactics of war.

It all adds up to a terrifying package of brute force coupled with invasive technology and totalitarian tactics.

This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.

In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.

Indeed, those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the militarized police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, in the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.

No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes. In this way, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

Red flag laws and gun control legislation are no less a threat to our freedoms.

WC: 2365

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

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

Oh God not again! ‘Gun violence will not end on its own’: CA lawmakers push to tax guns, ammo after recent mass shootings

‘Gun violence will not end on its own’: CA lawmakers push to tax guns, ammo after recent mass shootings

CALIFORNIA
Police respond to the scene of a multiple shooting on March 31 in Orange. In response to recent mass shootings, California lawmakers want to tax guns to pay for anti-violence programs.(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
Police respond to the scene of a multiple shooting on March 31 in Orange. In response to recent mass shootings, California lawmakers want to tax guns to pay for anti-violence programs.(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

Citing recent mass shootings in Orange, Boulder, Colo., and the Atlanta area, state lawmakers on Tuesday advanced a proposal for a new tax on the sale of guns and ammunition in California to boost funding for violence prevention programs.

The legislation by Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael) would place a $25 excise tax on retailers for the sale of each new gun and an as-yet-undetermined levy on ammo sales to raise millions of dollars to fund the efforts.

“Gun violence will not end on its own,” Levine told the Assembly Public Safety Committee during a hearing Tuesday. “We must take responsible action to end the public health crisis that is gun violence in our state, in our nation.”

The panel voted 5 to 2 along party lines to approve the legislation, which still needs approval from the full Assembly.

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

US Supreme Court: Gun Licensing Fees Are Unconstitutional By Civis Americanus AmericanThinker on Facebook (Maybe? Grumpy)

While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership (although not necessarily concealed carry) licensing scheme in the country.  This includes those that require licenses to own or purchase firearms.

  • License to own: IL, MA, NY
  • License to purchase: CT, HI, IA, MD, MI, NE, NJ, NC, RI

The executive summary of the ruling in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) was that it is unconstitutional for a state to levy a tax on people who want to sell religious merchandise.  “A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. The mere fact that the religious literature is ‘sold’, rather than ‘donated’ does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise.”

What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm?  The USSC also found, “A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”  This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.

It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax.  This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver’s licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.  “The law’s universally applicable requirements are eminently reasonable because the burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.”  States can charge fees for driver’s licenses because driving is a privilege, but voting is a right.

The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California.  “African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] … NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,

due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community.”  White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the “son of Ham.”

It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of “toting” guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] … There would be a very decided falling off of killings “in the heat of passion” if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] … Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.

The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.

Discrimination!  Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

The same applies to laws that require gun-owners to buy expensive liability insurance that might be affordable by people of the middle and upper classes, but not by low-paid workers among whom are many black Americans.  While these laws cannot discriminate openly against black people (just as Jim Crow gun taxes and prohibitions on inexpensive firearms known as N-word Saturday Night Specials did not specify any race), they can and do exploit the economic disparity that unfortunately prevails between Caucasians and black people to disarm the latter.  Perhaps certain elements of the Democratic Party have hidden the same sheets and hoods they wore openly 70 or 80 years ago instead of getting rid of them entirely.

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement

More to the point, however, is the brief’s citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase “[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue.”

Even Illinois’s own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown.  “The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons’ rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense.”  The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois’s own laws: “a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.  Thus, Brown, who was merely exercising her right to keep a long gun in her own home for self-defense, cannot be made to purchase a card or obtain a license to exercise this fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.”  I do not know the outcome of this case but the bottom line is that an Illinois court had problems with the FOID law.

This article has hopefully provided Second Amendment–supporters with a valuable legal tool with which to attack all state laws that require people to pay for licenses to own or purchase firearms, and potential jurors (i.e., every citizen in the country) with information to use if called to serve in cases that involve these laws.

Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way.  The author is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to “cancel culture” for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.

Image via Pexels.

 

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

A Radical Idea: It’s Not the Gun, it’s the Criminal

A Radical Idea: It’s Not the Gun, it’s the Criminal

Rahm Emanuel, recently the mayor of Chicago and who has previously served as a member of the Clinton Administration and as President Obama’s White House chief of staff, proposed a few curious gun control ideas while appearing as a panelist on ABC’s This Week program on March 28.

To get Republican support and pass new gun control laws, he said, Democrats must “focus[] on the criminal, not the gun.”

Focusing “on the criminal [aspect], not access to the gun,” he explained, means anyone with “a domestic violence record” would be prohibited from buying a firearm, as would anyone with “a mental health issue” or “a violent criminal record as a juvenile.”

As it happens, all of these persons (and many others) are already banned from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal laws passed in 1968 and 1996, and would be prohibited as well under similar laws in most states, including those of his native Illinois.

Emanuel also endorsed the enactment of a “no fly, no buy” law, based on prohibiting anyone on the federal government’s secret “No Fly” watchlist from being able to purchase or acquire a firearm. Government agencies running the watchlist, though, have admitted the list is speculative rather than based on actual evidence of wrongdoing, and the list has included, in the past, Democratic politicians, entertainers, toddlers, and other improbable “terrorists.” Moreover, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year revealed that agents actively misused the list by wrongfully adding innocent people, as punishment for refusing to serve as government informants.

Emanuel’s “no fly, no buy” plan not only fails using his own “focus on the criminal” rule, but the list is so lacking in the most basic due process protections that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) denounced its unconstitutionally vague standards and overall lack of “fundamental safeguards.”

The most peculiar exchange of the program was Emanuel’s insistence that the 1994 federal “assault weapons” ban was an example of his suggested approach. “Back when we passed the …the Assault Weapons Ban, we focused on the criminal, not the gun.”

The program host (at the 11:17 mark) interjected, incredulously exclaiming, “But that was about the gun, it was about the assault weapon… the effect was to ban assault style weapons for everybody.” Emanuel’s response  (at 11:29) was that, based on the debates, the law “was basically to make sure that gang members did not, that was the problem then, and it was focused on the criminal element.”

Even the most elementary and uninformed review of the actual “assault weapon” ban, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, P.L. 103-322, Title XI (1994), signed into law by President Clinton and which expired in 2004, shows clearly that the law was all about the guns. The law made it a federal crime for any person to possess or transfer a “semiautomatic assault weapon” manufactured after September 13, 1994. “Semiautomatic assault weapon,” as defined at former 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30), meant any of the listed firearms or “copies or duplicates … in any caliber,” as well as any semiautomatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun that met the listed features test, including many features that had nothing to do with crime.

There’s no substance to the claim that the law targeted criminals, as the ban applied across the board to everyone, subject only to very limited exceptions for governments, law enforcement, and federal licensees. Even if the goal was to curb gang gun crimes, studies of the effect and impact of the 1994 law concluded that the ban had no discernible impact – “perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” or as one writer called it, “precisely squat.”

While it’s true that the concept of focusing on the criminal rather than the gun places Rahm Emanuel notionally ahead of his compatriots in the Democratic party, his persistent claim that the 1994 ban on “assault weapons” was emblematic of that approach, despite the black letter law to the contrary, is inadvertently revealing. One way to reconcile the two is to assume an underlying mindset in which any person who possesses a gun necessarily comes within “the criminal element,” much like President Biden’s statement that “there is no rationale for us to have these assault weapons.”

Given Emanuel’s extensive background and experience, it’s also disturbing that his comments expose what seems to be a startling ignorance of existing and former federal gun laws, including a law that he was at pains to take credit for. There’s nothing new about prohibiting domestic abusers, the adjudicated mentally ill, or those with records for committing violent crimes from being able to acquire a gun, as those laws have been on the books for decades.

His thoughts are one more example of the constant barrage of misinformation that makes up the left’s propaganda on guns. It’s not about taking targeted measures to reduce crime or even enforce existing laws against criminals, but justifying new restrictions, that make it more and more difficult for the law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, as laws “focused on the criminal.” It’s easy to see why America’s gun owners reject out-of-touch proposals like these, along with similar “common sense gun control” notions, as something far short of effective, necessary or simply grounded in reason.

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

NRA Opposes David Chipman for ATF Director

NRA Opposes David Chipman for ATF Director

During a press conference on Thursday, President Biden announced that he would once again be targeting law-abiding gun owners by ordering ATF to develop two new restrictive regulations. Aiming to accessorize the Department of Justice’s anti-gun leadership team, Biden announced his nomination of gun control lobbyist David Chipman for Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

It’s hard to imagine choosing a nominee who is more hostile to the rights of American gun owners than Chipman.

Chipman is a Gun Control Extremist

David Chipman’s current employer, Giffords, co-founded by United States Senator Mark Kelly, filed a brief in the landmark Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief argued that, “The Second Amendment Does Not Limit the Options Available to Cities to Address the Problem of Gun Violence.” Notably, Giffords argued that the District’s complete ban on the possession of handguns by law-abiding Americans was constitutional. Such an interpretation would have completely eviscerated the Second Amendment.

This extremist view put Giffords sharply out-of-touch with the American people. Nearly, three-quarters of Americans at the time thought the Second Amendment “guaranteed an individual right to own gun.” For those who might think that Giffords has moved on from such extreme views, their law center’s website still proudly notes that they filed the brief arguing “that the right to possess a firearm is not based on an individual right of self-defense, but rather related to service in a militia based on the prefatory language in the Amendment.”

Chipman Wants to Target America’s Rifle

In October 2018, Chipman argued in favor of subjecting all AR-15s and potentially all semi-automatic rifles to regulation under the National Firearms Act. Beyond the problems of subjecting the most popular rifle in America to punitive taxation and registration, such a move would likely lead to a decade long backlog in NFA registrations, effectively banning America’s rifle, firearm suppressors, and other firearms currently subject to NFA regulation.

ATF operates on a “normal” backlog of 9-12 months for NFA applications. Even with this backlog and despite the registry being nearly 90 years old, as of 2020 there were only 6.6 million firearms in the registry. And, in recent years ATF has had the capacity to process only about 350,000 NFA forms per year. Even using the most conservative estimate for the number of AR-15s in America, with ATF’s current forms processing capacity, the agency would clear the backlog in NFA forms sometime around 2070. And, that’s only if the agency didn’t process a single NFA form for a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or other NFA firearm.

As an agent with ATF for over two decades, Chipman is familiar with the agency’s NFA form processing capacity. He likely sees such a delay as a feature rather than a defect.

Chipman reiterated his wish to subject existing AR-15s to the NFA in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” last year, but he further explained his position on future sales: “The biggest challenge we have is sheer numbers. It has been estimated that there are around 15 million assault rifles currently in circulation. I believe we should ban the future production and sale to civilians and afford current owners of these firearms the ability to license these particular guns with ATF under the National Firearms Act.”

Chipman Has Repeatedly Lied to Further his Gun Ban Agenda

Regular readers of NRA-ILA alerts are likely familiar with Chipman’s lies.

In 2019, we explained how Chipman was trying to mislead the public regarding firearms suppressors. He claimed that “The gun does not sound gun-like. It takes the edge out of the tone . . . This is how I would describe it: It makes a gun sort of sound like a nail gun.” As we said at the time, “The 30-35 dBA difference between a nail gun and a suppressed pistol will be perceived as at least eight times louder to the human ear.”

And, this wasn’t even the first time he lied about firearm suppressors. In 2017, Chipman claimed “Anyone who has worked in law enforcement for as long as I have will tell you that silencers were not designed to protect hearing, they were designed to make it difficult for people to identify the sound of gunfire and locate active shooters.” Again, at the time, we set the record straight by pointing out that he was simply flat wrong regarding the design intent of firearm suppressors. “Unfortunately for Mr. Chipman, Hiram Percy Maxim, the designer of the firearm suppressor, made his design intent perfectly clear.  Maxim wrote “The Maxim Silencer was developed to meet my personal desire to enjoy target practice without creating a disturbance . . . I have always loved to shoot, but I never thoroughly enjoyed it when I knew that the noise was annoying other people. It occurred to me one day that there was no need for the noise. Why not do away with it and shoot quietly?” At the time, Chipman’s employer also received three “Pinocchios” from the Washington Post for another misleading claim about firearm suppressors.

In the same Reddit “Ask Me Anything” discussed above, Chipman made the absurd claim that “At Waco, cult members used 2 .50 caliber Barretts to shoot down two Texas Air National Guard helicopters. Point, it is true we are fortunate they are not used in crime more often. The victims of drug lords in Mexico are not so lucky. America plays a role in fueling the violence south of the border.” Needless to say, no helicopters were “shot down” “at Waco.”

In testimony before the House Judicary Committee in 2019, Chipman claimed that the American gun market was “flooded” with “foreign made ARs.” Anyone even remotely familiar with the American gun market knows that this claim is false. Not only are nearly all AR-15s made in America, but continued strong demand for ARs seems to also refute his notion that the market was “flooded.”

It is clear that, if confirmed, Chipman would use every tool at his disposal to attack the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

Chipman’s views on the Second Amendment and his work as a gun prohibitionist should disqualify him from serving as the Director of the ATF.

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

Attorney argues Hawaii law is a ban on carrying guns By JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER Associated Press

A handgun sits on a desk in the Hawaii Department of Natural Resources hunter education classroom in Honolulu on May 10, 2016. (AP Photo/Marina Riker, File)

HONOLULU — A challenge to Hawaii’s strict gun laws was back before a federal appeals court Thursday, where an attorney representing the state tried to defend a law that allowed officials to deny George Young a permit to carry a loaded gun in public.

Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, said the law is a de-facto ban on guns outside the home.

Young wants to carry a gun for self-defense and says that not being able to do so violates his rights. His 2012 lawsuit was dismissed, with a judge siding with officials who said the Second Amendment only applied to guns kept in homes. It was Young’s third lawsuit seeking a carry permit to be dismissed.

He appealed. Three federal appeals court judges later ruled in his favor but the state asked for a fuller panel of judges to hear the case.

Hawaii County hasn’t issued a carry permit in 20 years, Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, argued.

“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, which the State of Hawaii ‘has understandably sought to fight,’” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 ruling in 2018. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

If the ruling stands, it could lead to more guns in public in the few Western states under 9th Circuit jurisdiction where they are currently restricted.

O’Scannlain was among the 11 randomly selected judges who heard arguments Thursday.

“He would be perfectly happy with an open carry permit,” Beck said of Young. “He also would be perfectly fine if this court found that rather than having a freestanding right to concealed carry, he’d be open to carry concealed as a reasonable alternative.”

Judge William Fletcher asked if it would be a violation of the Second Amendment if applicants needed to show some immediate danger for why a gun was necessary for self-defense.

Yes it would be, Beck said: “Crime is not something that individuals can predict.”

Hawaii’s law is not a flat ban because individuals can carry firearms if they have good cause, said Neal Katyal, a lawyer representing Hawaii.

“Hawaii’s law is squarely rooted in a long historical tradition going back seven centuries,” he said. “That tradition shows that carrying firearms in public without good cause has never been part of the right to keep and bear arms.”

It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court will settle the issue. It’s not clear when the 9th circuit judges will issue a ruling.

“Hawaii’s carry law is the most restrictive in the country,” Beck told The Associated Press. “Hawaii is the only place in the country where it’s effectively impossible to get a permit.”

 

 

 

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

California: Committee Passes Gun Tax & Further Restrictions for “Precursor” Parts

Last week, the Assembly Public Safety Committee voted to pass Assembly Bill 1223, to place an additional excise tax on firearms and ammunition, and Assembly Bill 311, to restrict firearm “precursor parts” from display or sale at gun shows. The committee sent AB 1223 to the Revenue and Tax Committee, and AB 311 to the Appropriations Committee for further consideration.

Assembly Bill 1223 taxes firearms at $25 each, and ammunition at a certain percentage yet to be determined, in order to fund social services programs for “gun violence.” The taxes are to be collected from California retailers on new firearms sold, and on their retail sales of ammunition. It is unjust to saddle law-abiding gun owners with special taxes to fund social service programs. Such a measure makes it more expensive for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right, and discourages them from practicing to be safe and proficient with their firearms for purposes such as self-defense, competition, and hunting.

Assembly Bill 311 prohibits the display or sale of any “precursor firearm parts” at gun shows in the state. So called “precursor” parts are not regulated as firearms under federal law, however, they are regulated and limited to being transferred by licensed vendors in California. Such restrictions continue to cut off access to law-abiding individuals who are looking to acquire firearm parts in accordance with existing law.​

On Tuesday April 13th, the Assembly Public Safety Committee is hearing AB 1237. Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE AB 1237.

Assembly Bill 1237 mandates the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to supply state information, including personal identifying information, to the UC Gun Violence Research Center at UC Davis, and allows the DOJ to provide this same information to certain non-profits and state agencies. This legislation creates grave privacy concerns, as well as concerns that this information could be provided to groups that create biased “research” to push gun control policies without actually researching root causes of violence.

Again, please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE AB 1237.