KRCR reports that Senate Bill 1200, which Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed into law, “adds ammunition and bullet drums to the list of items related to firearms that can be confiscated.”
This means that police executing a Gun Violence Restraining Order can not only sweep a gun owner’s home for firearms, but for ammunition and certain firearm accessories as well.
Other California gun controls which took effect January 1, 2019, include an expansion of training requirements necessary to acquire a concealed carry permit and inclusion of certain misdemeanors as justification for a lifetime ban on gun ownership.
The Wall Street Journalreports that misdemeanor domestic violence charges–such as “harmful touching of a spouse, roommate or dating partner”–can now be treated on part with domestic violence felonies and result in a total forfeiture of Second Amendment rights. AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
U.S.—In a rash of tragedies all across the United States, every single bump stock in the nation was tragically lost in various boating accidents earlier this week.
Coincidentally, the bump stocks have just been banned by the Trump administration. Since all the bump stocks have been destroyed, it’s now impossible for the ATF to confiscate them or fine people who did not destroy them.
“Well, I guess our job is done,” an ATF representative said. “We were gonna have to make sure people complied with this unilateral executive order, but now I guess we can just harass gun owners for other stuff. Worked out pretty nicely for all of us, I think.”
It’s not clear why gun owners were taking their bump stocks boating. Some have theorized they were using them to fish, or just wanted to make sure they weren’t stolen why they were away. Whatever the case, it’s tragic that the bump stocks are now all at the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans from coast to coast.
The bump stock ban rule is out.
Bump-fire stocks are now machineguns. To power-crazed tyrants, anyway. But, since FOPA forbids possession of machineguns manufactured or imported later than May 1986, you’ll have to get rid of them.
You want to be good, right?
I suppose you could simply destroy your bump-fire stock, but if the ATF gets hold of some retailers’ customer list and comes knocking, you’ll want some proof that you already complied.
You could hang on to the properly cut up pieces (you do have an oxy-acetylene torch?) and show them that.
Or you could turn in your new contraband like a good little citizen. Mail your bump-fire stock to the ATF.
Oh. Wait. That’s “bump-stock-TYPE device.” “Type” is fairly all-inclusive. To be safe, you should send in any bump-fire assist gadgets you have on hand. Rubber bands come to mind. So do Jeans (belt loops).
For that matter, none of this is needed to bump-fire a rifle; you can do it with bare hands. But you don’t want to ship those off, so represent them with gloves.
Heck, send them a finger.
Again, any semi-auto rifle can be bump-fired, so any stock is a “bump stock,” right? If you happened to replace the original wood stock for your SKS and have the old one laying around…
..send ’em that. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 99 New York Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20226
Heck, you might even toss some shoestrings in with your bump-fire toys, just in case they change their minds again.
They do that, after all.
Don’t forget to ask for a receipt. You should even consider sending it certified mail.
On the other hand, you might want to keep your stocks. I supppose you could tie 2 bump-stocks together. “No, Mr. ATF. That there is my constitutionally-protected nunchuks.”
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Sociologists and criminologists rendered their verdict. Gun-control in California doesn’t work. In hindsight, that should have been obvious. Unfortunately, these failed laws will probably not be rescinded by lawmakers nor be overturned by judges. Since Californians won’t change things at the ballot box, they are going to have to vote with their feet to restore their rights.
What we now know about gun-control-
This recent report on gun-control was issued by a number of academics, including the researcher funded by the state of California in their Violence Prevention Research Program. This is hardly a right wing policy piece purchased by gun manufacturers. The report compared data from California with data from other states that did not enact gun-control laws. Rates of homicide with a gun and suicide did not decrease in California compared to those other states used as a control group. There was no significant difference despite the gun-control laws being in place for more than a quarter century. Mandated background checks for all firearms purchases didn’t reduce crime or suicide. Prohibiting people with misdemeanor offenses from buying guns didn’t reduce crime or suicide in California.
California also has mandatory firearms safety training, 10 day waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, and one-gun-a-month purchase restrictions. Most people can’t get a concealed carry license in California. There are obvious reasons these gun-control laws don’t work despite the political promises made in press releases.
What we thought would happen and why gun-control failed-
California politicians said that criminals wouldn’t use guns if we regulated law abiding citizens. In most cases, the criminals simply got their guns illegally. If guns were in short supply, then criminals shared guns rather than each criminal having a gun of his own. For the few criminals that were inconvenienced by these gun-control laws, the criminal simply used another tool of intimidation rather than using a firearm.
That analysis only looks at part of the balance between criminals and crime victims. It has to be true that some criminal somewhere was inconvenienced by California’s gun-control laws. Unfortunately, all of the law abiding California gun owners were also inconvenienced by these laws. Many honest citizens were disarmed. The effect of disarming a few criminals was overwhelmed by disarming so many of the intended victims of crime. Rather than make crime harder, California’s gun-control laws made crime easier. Guns save lives when they are in the hands of law abiding citizens as well as take lives when they are in the hands of criminals.
This study shows that criminals ignore gun laws and the burden falls on honest gun owners. That is true for every gun-control law. Unfortunately, California politicians and judges don’t care. There is a reason why.
We are the only ones who care if gun-control fails-
California’s gun-control laws clearly infringe on our natural right of self-defense. These laws also disproportionately disarm the poor and minority segments of our society. Gun-control leaves the most vulnerable segments of society at greater risk. Shouldn’t lawmakers and judges care about that?
California’s gun-control laws don’t apply to California politicians. They can buy the guns they want and carry them at times and places where you can’t. California judges get concealed carry permits in counties where ordinary citizens are denied a permit. In addition, California politicians can continue to rake in campaign contributions in support of gun-control even though the gun-control laws don’t work.
In short, gun-control works for California’s elites. Politicians and judges won’t change a system that works for them. What is shocking to me is that federal court judges agree with the California politicians and with lower court judges. That means we can’t look to politicians or judges for help.
Changing things is up to us.
~_~_
I gave you 600 words for free. Please rate, share, and comment in return. RM
I think that the Term – A Death by a thousand Cuts comes to mind! Grumpy
Standard Capacity 223 Magazine
U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- In a split decision, a three judge panel at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ruled the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a second-rate right, not entitled to the full protections of other enumerated rights. The opinion was filed on 5 December, 2018. The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 18-3170 (3rd Cir. 2018).
The two majority judges followed the trend of other Circuits where the Second Amendment is being degraded and reduced to second-rate status. Only a month ago, the First Circuit ruled the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home.
The rogue Circuits are able to do this because the Supreme Court has been refusing to hear Second Amendment cases for nearly a decade. The Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases. They are not required to hear all cases.
Some Circuit courts are gutting the Second Amendment by claiming it is not really a right. Rather, they say, it is a privilege the government may regulate if the government thinks it might do some good to regulate it. These Jurists seem embarrassed by the Second Amendment. They seem to believe their job is to limit it as much as possible, rather than to protect it as a fundamental right. Judge Stephano Bibas wrote the dissenting opinion in the Third Circuit ruling. He is an outstanding jurist who was appointed by President Trump. At only 49 years old, he is already the 15th most cited jurist by the Supreme Court. His resume is impressive. It is easy to see why President Trump chose to appoint him. His dissent runs to 19 pages. The first four paragraphs eviscerates the majority decision. From uscourts.gov:
The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in Heller. We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy. 554 U.S. at 634-35.
Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendment’s core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one’s family in one’s home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here. Second, though the majority purports to use intermediate scrutiny, it actually recreates the rational-basis test forbidden by Heller. It suggests that this record favors the government, but make no mistake—that is not what the District Court found. The majority repeatedly relies on evidence that the District Court did not rely on and expert testimony that the District Court said was “of little help.” 2018 WL 4688345, at *8. It effectively flips the burden of proof onto the challengers, treating both contested evidence and the lack of evidence as conclusively favoring the government. Whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies, we should require real evidence that the law furthers the government’s aim and is tailored to that aim. But at key points, the majority substitutes anecdotes and armchair reasoning for the concrete proof that we demand for heightened scrutiny anywhere else. New Jersey has introduced no expert study of how similar magazine restrictions have worked elsewhere. Nor did the District Court identify any other evidence, as opposed to armchair reasoning, that illuminated how this law will reduce the harm from mass shootings. Id. at *12-13. So New Jersey cannot win unless the burden of proof lies with the challengers. It does not.
If the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari (the legal term for agreeing to hear a case before the Supreme Court), Judge Bibas’ reasoning is rock solid.
For those who do not follow these cases closely, here is a short explanation of the different levels of scrutiny. Strict Scrutiny – The highest level of protection, reserved for fundamental Constitutional rights. To pass this level of legal examination, a law, regulation, or other restriction of a Constitutional right must be required by a compelling state interest, and the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that result. The burden of proof is on the government.
For example: There is a general prohibition on shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. This is a restriction on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The prohibition serves a compelling state interest of public safety. The restriction is narrowly tailored to ban shouting false information that causes severe, direct, physical, harm to others.
A corollary for the Second Amendment would be a general prohibition on firing a gun in a crowded theater when there is no reasonable, deadly threat. Intermediate Scrutiny- The middle level of protection of less than fundamental rights. The law or regulation must serve an important government objective, and be substantially related to achieving that objective. The burden of proof rests with the government. This level is fairly new, only existing since 1976. Rational Basis – The lowest level of protection. Generally not applied to rights. It essentially is no protection at all. The party challenging the law or rule has the burden of proof. They have to show the government has *no* legitimate interest in the law, rule, or policy. They have to show there is *no* conceivable rational basis for the law, even if the government never stated one. Laws, rules, or policies are almost never struck down on this basis.
Judge Bibas shows the two majority judges collapsed the level of scrutiny from strict scrutiny to rational basis, while calling it “intermediate scrutiny”.
Second Amendment supporters know the Third Circuit ignored the rule of law and applied their own, cherished, leftist, Progressive, biases to gut Second Amendment protections in this case.
Judge Bibas, in his masterful dissent, shows how they did it.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
That grin tells you he’s pleased he’s the new boss, with a super majority in the state legislature. What mischief can he get up to next?
The political class in our state answers to the public entity unions and the illegal alien/Hispanic lobby, and no one else.
How long until the actual generators of wealth, the actual working citizens, rebel against this? Or exit the state, accelerating the fiscal collapse that is probably already baked into the cake irrespective of whether these bills are passed or not?
The founding fathers, at the end of the 1700’s, knew that Democracies naturally and inevitably collapse when the voters discover that they can elect representatives who will use the power of the state to transfer the wealth of others to them. That’s clearly what’s happening now in California.
As I was telling someone the other day, as the state becomes more and more desperate to pay for their fiscal obligations, they will become more and more desperate to seize the wealth of those people that create it. That will accelerate the emigration outward of all productive people. If you have property here, better sell it now. Believe me, that has started already, and will only become more pronounced as the governing elite continue to attempt to buy the votes of the non productive with the wealth of the productive.
Boulder, CO residents given 23 days to “certify” assault weapons or face fines and/or jail time. Residents of Boulder rally to protest the city’s “assault weapons” ban. (Photo: Boulder Daily Camera Youtube)
Residents of Boulder, Co., have until December 27 to “certify” their “assault weapons” or remove the firearms from city limits. Those who fail to comply could face fines, jail time, and confiscation and destruction of their firearms, according to the Denver Post.
“My hope is that we will see more bans at the state level and one day at the federal level so these weapons will no longer be available,” Councilman Aaron Brockett said in May.
Boulder police Sgt. Dave Spraggs stressed to the Post that no records or paperwork are kept of these certifications. He claims that police only keep a “handwritten count” of how many rifles residents certify.
It’s difficult to estimate compliance levels, and police and city officials have admitted that they can’t do much about gun owners who refuse to certify their rifles.
“This is a very divisive issue where people have very strong feelings,” City Attorney Tom Carr told the Daily Camera. “The folks who oppose these kinds of bans … some of them suggest they’re not going to cooperate. I can’t predict what people are going to do, but I respect the feelings.”
SEE ALSO: Way Too Lit: Gender Reveal Party Sparks 47,000-Acre WildfireOthers voiced their skepticism more forcefully.
“By definition, effective governing must be practical and enforceable,” Boulder resident John Ramey told the Camera.
“When something isn’t enforceable, like the war on drugs, that’s a huge sign that the underlying legal model doesn’t match the actual problems and realities.
“At best, ineffective laws just displace or morph the problem. Mass shootings declined after Australia’s weapons ban, but gun-related crimes doubled in just five years. In countries like the UK and China, they now deal with daily fear of acid, knife, and vehicle attacks.”
The Boulder ordinance defines “assault weapon” to include semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that feature the usual list of terrifying accessories (pistol grips, folding stocks, etc.).
Spraggs says he doesn’t know how many rifles to expect between now and the deadline. Technically, residents have until December 31 to register their firearms, but due to the holidays, the last day an officer will be available to certify firearms is December 27.
Boulder police say they have certified 85 firearms since the city council passed an “assault weapons” ban in May. Residents who already owned prohibited rifles, pistols, and shotguns were given the chance to keep their firearms by certifying prior ownership with police. The council also voted unanimously to ban “high-capacity” magazines and bump stocks.
Steve Scalise says he’s still pro-Second Amendment despite being targeted for his political beliefs in a violent shooting. (Photo:Scalise)
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was all about the Second Amendment before he was shot last year. Today he’s still all about the right to keep and bear arms.
That’s what Scalise said on television during an interview with a “surprised” Whoopi Goldberg. She said he doesn’t “have an idea that there may be some more gun control that we need to work on with stuff like this.”
Scalise was one of many Republicans targeted at the 2017 Congressional baseball practice shooting. He told her that he’s gotten that question a lot since and that his stance remains unwavering.
“Three and a half months later I came back to Congress and got to get back to work again and I had people that would ask me, ‘You know so are your views different on gun control?’”
“I’ve got deep-rooted conservative beliefs but they’re rooted in what the fundamental foundation of this country is based on,” said Scalise.
“I mean, when the Constitution was written initially they didn’t have a protection for guns because our founders just thought it was an assumed right,” said Scalise. “Later they added it in the Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment [because] they felt very strongly that every American has the right to defend themselves.”
The View
✔@TheView
Rep. @SteveScalise explains why his views on gun control have not changed since he was shot last year: “I’ve got deep-rooted conservative beliefs, but they’re rooted in what the fundamental foundation of this country is based on.” http://abcn.ws/2CcjBVI
“There are bad people out there you know whether they have guns or knives or bombs, [and] there are a lot of laws on the books,” he continued. “If somebody goes and uses a gun to commit a crime they’ve broken a series of laws to get there … so let’s enforce the laws better.”
Scalise said that people need to treat violence as a health issue in addition to enforcing existing gun control.
“There’s usually a common thread in a lot of these shooters that there are mental health issues,” said Scalise. “We just passed new laws, and they were very bipartisan so they didn’t get a lot of attention, but laws that help close a lot of those loopholes and coordinate a lot of the mental health problems in this country so that if somebody does have serious mental illness they’re going to be taken care of in a better way.”
He affirmed his position by citing the landmark Heller decision, which holds that people have a fundamental right to own guns for lawful purposes including self-defense.
“The Supreme Court, by the way, answered this question a few years ago,” said Scalise. “It was a 5-4 decision – which is concerning, it should’ve been a 9-0 decision – but the Supreme Court said very clearly that you can own a gun not just as a member of the military but also individually to protect yourself … that is the true meaning of the Second Amendment.”
