Category: Gun Fearing Wussies

Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

America’s First “Assault Weapon”: The “Bowie Knife”?

Post author By Grumpy
Post date December 19, 2023
No Comments on America’s First “Assault Weapon”: The “Bowie Knife”?

The title of this article may seem curious, but there is a point to it. Consider the fact that “assault weapon” is an intentionally nebulous, malleable term created and promoted by anti-gun extremists with the stated intent of creating confusion. A “weapon” can actually be anything that is simply used to inflict damage or bodily harm. It can be specifically designed to be used as a weapon, but could it be the actual use of the item, not the design, that makes the ultimate determination as to whether it is, indeed, a “weapon”?

This may be a philosophical debate, but is an antique rifle hung above a fireplace—one never intended to be taken down, loaded, and fired—still a “weapon” because of its design, or has it now become a decoration because of its actual ornamental use?

To take an even deeper philosophical dive, is a chair’s existence in the universe somehow magically altered from furniture to “weapon” the moment someone picks it up to strike someone else? Perhaps this is a loose variation on the quantum mechanics thought experiment of Schrödinger’s cat.

The chair is both furniture and weapon, and the rifle is both weapon and decoration, until someone “opens the box” to decide the application, thus determining how the items will actually exist in the world.

The ultimate truth is that something is only a weapon if it is used, or intended to be used, as one. So an “assault weapon” can, technically, be any item used to “assault” someone.

But proponents of banning the possession of firearms by law-abiding US citizens have strived for decades to inculcate in the American psyche the notion that an “assault weapon” is a specific type of firearm; usually a semi-automatic rifle that incorporates a detachable magazine.

Today, the anti-gun industrial complex wants the image of an AR-15 to pop into your mind when it screams about banning “assault weapons,” but that wasn’t always the case. In the early days of the use of the term—in the mid-1980s—it was often semi-automatic versions of the AK-47, MAC-10, or Uzi that were depicted with the sobriquet “assault weapon.”

The term is so malleable and undefinable by design, however, that extremists have also used it to describe countless handguns and shotguns, and the ability to utilize a detachable magazine is not always considered a prerequisite for inclusion as an “assault weapon.” Indeed, even those who promote banning “assault weapons” are often so confused by their own term that they frequently either misidentify firearms, or simply cannot, or refuse to, offer a definition of the term.

In other words, those who wish to ban “assault weapons” will ultimately determine what is an “assault weapon,” the list of items banned will likely be far more inclusive than exclusive, and said list will also likely be subject to never-ending expansion.

In fact, the most recent version of a proposed federal ban on “assault weapons” would appear to ban ALL semi-automatic firearms, then “exempts” some semi-autos from the ban, and would require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to maintain a list of guns that would be legal under the new paradigm.

So, what does any of this have to do with the “Bowie knife”? More than you might think.

Much like an “assault weapon,” a “Bowie knife” is fairly hard to define—at least, originally, when the term was created ~1830s. The original “Bowie knife”—the one supposedly carried by frontiersman Jim Bowie that was initially “popularized” through accounts of his use of it at the Sandbar Fight in 1827—likely did not resemble what most today consider a Bowie knife. And while today’s versions often vary in appearance, most are relatively large knives, carried in a sheath, and frequently include a crossguard and a clip-point.

Also much like an “assault weapon,” there’s nothing innovative or unique to a “Bowie knife”—either originally or currently—that makes it remarkably different from other knives. It has a blade and a handle, just like most other knives, and is a design that is millennia old. It is on the larger end of the spectrum of knives, but the same can be said for countless other knife designs that predate the “Bowie knife” by centuries, if not also millennia.

Similarly, “assault weapons” utilize the same technology for operating—including as related to storing, loading, discharging, and cycling ammunition—as has existed for well over a century. In fact, the semi-automatic operation utilized by “assault weapons” was invented in the 19^th century, mere decades after the “Bowie knife” came to be. These firearms generally fire ammunition that is not only no more powerful than what most hunters use for harvesting deer, but is often much less powerful, ballistically speaking.

And just like with “assault weapons,” around the time the term “Bowie knife” was being more frequently used to describe certain styles of blades, laws that sought to regulate them began popping up around the country. Again, the knife was not innovative or truly unique in any way, but because people attached a certain mystique to the name (just like with “assault weapons”), and the knife itself began growing in popularity (again, just like with “assault weapons”), it drew the attention of lawmakers determined to impose regulations on arms.

Second Amendment scholar and attorney David Kopel wrote two articles last year that expose the eerie similarities between how these knives were treated in the mid-to-late 19^th century and semi-automatic firearms today, although that does not appear to have been the goal of his work. One discusses some of the ways firearms and “Bowie knives” were regulated in America prior to 1900, and another looks at statutes between 1837 and 1899 that were specific to regulating “Bowie knives.”

One of the points raised by Kopel makes yet another argument for how “Bowie knives” were America’s first “assault weapon.” It wasn’t until a single, high-profile incident took place that laws restricting “Bowie knives” really started being enacted.

In 1837, a debate between two Arkansas State Representatives escalated to the point of both drawing “Bowie knives,” with the end result being one dead, and one seriously wounded. Of course, this was long before the Internet, television, or radio, and even the telegraph was still in the process of being developed for widespread use at the time, so news spread slowly in those days. Nonetheless, a fatal stabbing in the Arkansas State House likely garnered a bit of national attention, and undoubtedly helped spur on some of the “Bowie knife” laws that were passed following the event.

In the same year the Arkansas fight took place, but before the actual altercation, two states—Mississippi and Alabama—enacted the first “Bowie knife” restrictions. After the fight, Georgia passed its own restrictions, some of which were eventually declared unconstitutional. The next year saw four states enact their own restrictions, and by 1859, a total of 16 states and territories had enacted some form of a restriction on “Bowie knives.”

By 1899, with 46 states included in the Union, 32 had laws on their books that referenced “Bowie knives” or a variant of the term, according to Kopel.

So, if you thought emotionalism driving legislation was a problem unique to modern times—due largely to the explosion of social media and the 24/7 instant news reporting of any tragedy—that’s probably not the case. In fact, now that we do have the Internet, social media, and seemingly unlimited news outlets (even if most of the media tend to support rabidly anti-gun views), there are probably more opportunities today to fend off legislation that is emotionally driven, as there are more opportunities for the public to hear logic-based views countering emotional arguments.

Looking back at the spread of anti-“Bowie knife” legislation in the 19^th century, two things should be noted. First, at least one law that banned the sale of them was deemed unconstitutional, and in violation of the Second Amendment, when challenged in court. Another court found the carrying of “Bowie knives” to be a right protected under the Second Amendment.

These court decisions from the mid-19^th century are just two of many that eviscerate the anti-gun myth that the more recent rulings out of the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) somehow invented the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right both to arms, and to carrying those arms.

Another interesting aspect of the comparison between “Bowie knives” and “assault weapons” is the fact that most of the legislative animus towards each has been geographically flipped. In the 19^th century, it was Southern states that predominantly looked to restrict the vilified knives, while the northeast largely ignored such restrictions.

Kopel even noted an interesting contrast to how the South was treating “Bowie knives” out of New Hampshire:

“Like all of the Northeast, New Hampshire in mid-century had no interest in Bowie knife laws. But Bowie knives did appear in a legislative resolution that considered Bowie knives and revolvers to be effective for legitimate defense.”

Today, of course, Southern states tend to reject restrictions on “assault weapons,” while many states in the Northeast have adopted bans and other unconstitutional restrictions on them.

Eventually, the hyper-emotional reaction to “Bowie knives” from the 19^th century waned, and today, most states consider them little different than any other knife. No state currently bans their sale, as some tried to do way back when, and no state currently tries to dissuade their possession with prohibitive taxes for purchase or possession, as was imposed in the past. And no state bans their mere possession. Bans on sales, exorbitant taxes, and bans on possession are all, of course, methods today’s anti-arms extremists use to try to restrict our right to own “assault weapons.”

So, whether or not you agree with the hypothesis that “Bowie knives” were America’s first “assault weapon,” there is at least one conclusion to this discussion with which anyone who supports the Second Amendment can likely agree.

Rather than capitulate to the anti-“assault weapon” hysteria of today, as so many apparently did during the anti-“Bowi knife” hysteria of the 19^th century, NRA and our supporters must continue to fight against the irrational, emotional arguments of those who promote disarming law-abiding Americans. We are not willing to be “those” who are described in the aphorism widely attributed to philosopher George Santayana:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

We must remember what happened to America’s first “assault weapon,” and reject the emotional, illogical call to impose restrictions on our right to arms, as those in the 19^th century should have done with the imposed restrictions on “Bowie knives.” The similarities between the two campaigns separated by roughly a century-and-a-half should be recognized, and rather than wait for states that act irrationally to eventually come to their senses, as was the case with “Bowie knives,” we need to defeat these emotionally-driven, anti-freedom agendas, and make sure these particular errors of the mid-to-late 19^th century are not repeated.

Gun Fearing Wussies

Biden White House Directs States to Crack Down on Second Amendment Rights

Post author By Grumpy
Post date December 19, 2023
No Comments on Biden White House Directs States to Crack Down on Second Amendment Rights

Recently, we reported on the establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, an effort by the Biden Administration to funnel taxpayer dollars to the partisan project of gun control. Whatever else can be said of the office, it is at least trying to justify its existence by staying busy, to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners.

Last week the office convened a meeting with democrat state legislators in an effort to dragoon them into enacting anti-gun policies that have failed to gain traction at the federal level. Even the U.S. Justice Department – supposedly the executive’s guarantor of civil rights – is now drafting constitutionally dubious “model legislation” that states can use to crack down on gun owners. The effort shows Biden’s weaponization of government for political purposes continues to sink to new lows.

White House propaganda characterized this meeting as part of the “Biden-Harris Administration’s Safer States Initiative.” The details of the initiative can be found in a brochure that lists various actions the White House wants states to take to promote the administration’s goal of normalizing persecution of gun owners. The general thrust of the “initiative” seems to be that anti-gun officials can turn back the U.S. Supreme Court’s development of Second Amendment doctrine and the public’s increasing embrace of the right to keep and bear arms by mass, coordinated action in the opposite direction.

The outline of the administration’s plan for state action is follows:

“Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention”;
“Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence”;
“Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence”;
“Reinforce Responsible Gun Ownership”;
“Strengthen Gun Background Checks”; and
“Hold the Gun Industry Accountable”.

The outline paints a picture of obvious gun control euphemisms interspersed with potential efforts at problem solving. But the details of the plan paint a different story, one replete with the same unconstitutional, failed, or – at best – unproven policies the firearm prohibition lobby has pursued for decades. Little of it has anything to do with crime or safety. Instead, most of it is squarely focused on making life more difficult for anyone who would dare own a gun or operate a firearm-related business.

The first step, “Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention,” seeks to replicate the White House’s own Office of Gun Violence Prevention within the states themselves. That is, the states should create positions for dedicated gun control activists within their internal bureaucracy. This would give gun control the imprimatur of official state policy and allow the activists to use public funds to pursue their agenda with local officials and private anti-gun organizations.

Every taxpayer would be a mandatory contributor to the cause. Every state employee would be indoctrinated in gun control as an essential element of “good governance” and would have to reflect this outlook in their own work. Whatever elements of the public remained pro-gun would have to be re-educated from the top down in this new civic norm.

The second step, “Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence”, is significant mainly for its subtle shift in language from the prior gun control rhetoric of “evidence-based” solutions to the lower standard of “evidence-informed.” This is a tacit admission that there is precious little quality evidence for anything the administration is recommending.

Among the policies recommended in this section is “Fund Community Violence Interventions.” In theory, this would use a community-based approach to reducing firearm-related crime through “comprehensive social, health, and economic support for individuals at greatest risk”. Where this has actually been tried, however, the funds often go to “community groups” composed of unprincipled grifters, including “peacekeepers” who in some cases are ex-prisoners who not only fail to keep the peace but contribute to the violence they are supposed to prevent.

States are additionally encouraged under this heading to enact “extreme risk protection order” or “red flag” laws, which are a means of authorizing forcible (and sometimes lethal) confiscation of firearms from non-prohibited persons who are accused of posing some sort of “danger” to themselves or others. What these laws don’t do – assuming they are even administered in good faith – is actually address the underlying factors that may be contributing to the person’s instability or distress. Once the guns are confiscated, the state’s work is done; the person is then left to fend for themselves or pursue alternate means for whatever mischief they may have had in mind.

The third step, “Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence”, would seem to be the least controversial of the plan’s objectives. But one of the policies under this heading would actually help protect criminals from detection and prosecution by recommending that certain federally-funded services for crime victims be provided without the statutory requirement that the victims “cooperate with law enforcement”. This is part and parcel of the administration’s approach to “safety,” which bends over backwards to give individuals who actually cause harm a pass, while seeking to shift ever more burdens to the law-abiding public at large. It also shows that the administration will twist statutes to its will wherever possible, including by making legal requirements “waivable” when they prove politically inconvenient.

Generally speaking, the administration’s recommendations under this heading also show equal concern for criminals who are shot as an outcome of their illegal activities as for other victims of “gun violence” who have no culpability in bringing that status on themselves.

The Fourth step of “Reinforcing Responsible Gun Ownership” is synonymous with “enacting punitive gun control.” Even while urging concern for criminals who get themselves shot while participating in crime, the administration advocates for penalizing those whose guns are stolen or used by a third party to cause harm, unless the gun owner complied with mandatory storage and reporting requirements.

This prong of the plan includes model “safe storage” legislation drafted by none other than the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Under DOJ’s proposed model, a person not actually carrying or using a gun, or having it within arm’s reach, would have to disable it with a locking device or store it in a locked container. This is at odds, however, with U.S. Supreme Court precedent that forbids storage requirements that would render a gun unavailable for “immediate self-defense”. Of course, the proposed law would exempt DOJ’s own officers, as well as other law enforcement personnel, from these general requirements, demonstrating DOJ’s commitment to “gun safety” ends at is own liability.

Another DOJ model law would penalize anyone who’s firearm was stolen, unless the person submitted a mandatory report to the government “no later than 48 hours after the person … knew or reasonably should have known of the … theft” (emphasis added). This could apply to a theft the person was actually unaware of (for example, from a sporadically used camper or hunting cabin), but – in a prosecutor’s opinion – could have been discovered with more care or diligence. This concept makes the gun owner who was victimized by the theft the low-hanging fruit for law enforcement, rather than the criminal who actually stole the gun. It betrays, once again, an approach to public safety that faults everybody but the perpetrator for the commission of a crime.

It should come as no surprise that the administration’s recommendations for “Strengthening Background Checks”, the fifth step, includes criminalizing private firearm transfers, even to non-prohibited persons who intend to use the firearms lawfully. But the administration wants the states to go further, including by making confidential juvenile records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, so they can be used to deny otherwise non-prohibited adults firearm purchases. This includes both youthful indiscretions that did not result in criminal prosecutions, as well as records of certain mental health interventions. Thus, while the administration is eager to protect criminals from prosecution, it is also eager to make sure that kids who had a bumpy road to adulthood are penalized when it comes to their Second Amendment rights.

The final category of “Holding the Gun Industry Accountable” includes making the gun industry responsible for third party criminal acts (notwithstanding existing federal law to the contrary) and heaping redundant state licensing and bureaucratic requirements for dealers onto the existing federal ones. Even more tellingly, however, it recommends banning some of the industry’s most popular products, including semi-automatic long guns (which the administration deceptively calls “assault weapons”). Usually, the administration promotes such bans as a public safety imperative. It’s admission here that they are also (perhaps primarily) a way to punish businesses simply for being involved in the gun trade is especially revealing.

Needless to say, most of the hardcore anti-gun states have implemented versions of these measures already. Meanwhile, moderate or pro-gun states are either not interested in them or (appropriately) have higher priorities for actually fighting crime. But it says something significant that the administration is willing to expend so much effort signaling to its supporters and donors how much they want to clamp down on the Second Amendment.

Gun owners should consider themselves warned.

All About Guns Ammo Born again Cynic! California Gun Fearing Wussies

LA County Pols at it again!

Post author By Grumpy
Post date October 27, 2023
No Comments on LA County Pols at it again!

Board Supervisor Janice Hahn. — Supervisor Janice Hahn proposed the new ordinance. (*Photo: Hahn.LaCounty.gov*)

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors advanced an ordinance today to enhance regulations for gun and ammunition dealers in unincorporated areas of the county.

Table of contents

Janice Hahn’s Baby

LA County Board Supervisor Janice Hahn pushed for the new policy.

“We need to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands and part of that effort is ensuring gun and ammunition dealers are acting responsibly,” said Hahn.

“These are commonsense regulations that will make sure gun dealers have basic security measures in place, maintain inventory, and keep records of who they sell guns and ammunition to,” she added.

The new ordinance will impact 18 gun dealers and two exclusive ammunition dealers in unincorporated LA County.

The Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector will enforce these rules.

Key provisions Include

Ammunition dealers must obtain a business license and meet requirements similar to gun dealers. Previously, exclusive ammunition dealers didn’t need a specific license.
Stores selling guns and ammunition can’t allow minors unless an adult accompanies them. Mixed-use stores must offer sight separation.
Dealers should maintain annual sales reports, keep purchaser fingerprints, update a weekly inventory, install security cameras, and display signs about gun access risks.
The Treasurer and Tax Collector will publicly post names of suspended and revoked licensees.
The annual license fee for initial applications and renewals will increase.

The ordinance awaits a second hearing on November 7th. If approved again, it will become effective 30 days afterward.

Prior Regulations

This regulation is the third in a series of four proposed by Supervisor Hahn. Previous ordinances banned .50 caliber firearms sales and prohibited firearms on county property.

Another in development will introduce a 1,000-foot buffer between gun shops and “child safety zones.”

Furthermore, LA County is advocating for greater awareness and utilization of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) aka “red flag” laws.

GVROs are gun confiscation orders that target those accused — not convicted — of being a threat to public safety.

SAF Responds

“Politicians like Janice Hahn is the reason the Second Amendment is so important. She has done everything in her power to shred our Bill of Rights,” said Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), in an email to GunsAmerica.

“Our founding fathers warned us about those in government who abuse their power and made sure that we had courts to protect our freedom,” he continued. “The Second Amendment Foundation will make sure that she will be a defendant in the court room!”

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Gun Fearing Wussies

FROM THE BENCH JUDGE ROGER T. BENITEZ HITS CALIFORNIA AGAIN WRITTEN BY DAVE WORKMAN

Post author By Grumpy
Post date October 27, 2023
No Comments on FROM THE BENCH JUDGE ROGER T. BENITEZ HITS CALIFORNIA AGAIN WRITTEN BY DAVE WORKMAN

Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez last month, and for the
second time, declared California’s ban on so-called
“high-capacity magazines” is unconstitutional.

When U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez last month handed down his crushing 71-page ruling in a case known as Duncan v. Bonta — declaring California’s ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines” to be unconstitutional for a second time — one could tell by reading the opinion he had really done his homework.

In his ruling, Judge Benitez observed, “There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme. Our federal government and most states impose no limits and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus. Delaware landed on a 17-round magazine limit. Illinois and Vermont picked limits of 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for a rifle. Colorado went with a 15-round limit for handguns and rifles, and a 28-inch tube limit for shotguns. New York tried its luck at a 7-round limit; that did not work out. New Jersey started with a 15-round limit and then reduced the limit to 10-rounds. The fact that there are so many different numerical limits demonstrates the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limits.”

All this tells us is that people who craft gun control laws limiting magazine capacities don’t know zip about firearms. Nobody has ever explained to me — and I have asked — why the 10-round limit seems to be popular among gun prohibitionists. I wasn’t really surprised; after all, no explanation would make sense, anyway.

Were someone to claim a 10-rounder would help prevent mass shootings, I’d just remind them about Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer who murdered six people in 2014. After killing three people with a knife, he drove to the area near the University of California, Santa Barbara and killed three more people using two different handguns and California-compliant 10-round magazines.

For the best perspective on what this ruling meant to anti-gunners, one need only look to the message on “X” (formerly known as Twitter) posted by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 22. Here’s what he said: “California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to human life. Wake up, America. Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America.”

Newsom earlier this year announced his proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would essentially nullify the Second Amendment and replace it with gun control fanaticism designed to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a government-regulated privilege.

Far Left

Newsom isn’t the only far-left Democrat governor (recall last week’s Insider, which discussed New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s arbitrary and quickly-enjoined order essentially suspending the Second Amendment in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County), but he is certainly a standout.

He probably went into convulsions when reading through the Benitez decision. The judge observed, “Why are larger magazines chosen for self-defense? Crime happens a lot. One recent estimate holds that guns are needed defensively approximately 1,670,000 times a year.”

And then there was this: “California relies entirely on the opinion of its statistician for the hypothesis that defenders fire an average of only 2.2 shots in cases of confrontation. Where does the 2.2 shot average originate? There is no national or state government data report on shots fired in self-defense events. There is no public government database.”

Translation: Somebody may have simply made it up.

Judge Benitez’s recent ruling looked back on his previous decision regarding the California mag ban, which was remanded back to his court following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling. In a footnote on Page 5 of his new decision, the judge added this footnote: “As this Court explained in its prior decision, ‘[a]rtificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. It is an insidious plan to disarm the populace and it depends on for its success a subjective standard of ‘necessary’ lethality. It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds.

To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round ‘loophole’ and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are ‘necessary.’ Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round ‘loophole’ and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds are ‘suitable.’ And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun.’”

Mass Shooting Misinformation

California’s magazine ban was initiated ostensibly to reduce potential carnage in a mass shooting incident, which are rare but high-profile. The media loves a bloodbath.

Author and researcher John Lott, founder and president of
the Crime Prevention Research Center, was at the Gun Rights
Policy Conference last month with some interesting information
about armed citizen intervention in mass shootings.

What the media apparently doesn’t like, however, is a case where an armed private citizen intervenes and stops a shooting. The FBI claims it happens rarely, but during last month’s 38th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Phoenix, author/economist John Lott referred to his recent report on the “massive errors” in the FBI’s active shooting reports from 2014 to 2022.

According to Lott, “Sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives.”

“Of course,” Lott wrote, “law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.”

Lott also notes, “The FBI reports that armed citizens only stopped 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2022 … An analysis by the CPRC identified a total of 440 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 157.”

Even if Lott’s numbers were off by 50% (which I doubt), his figure would still far exceed the number of armed citizen interventions acknowledged by the FBI.

Look for an upcoming report from Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center updating the number of active concealed carry permits and licenses in the United States, which will not include the estimated number of armed citizens in the 27 states which have adopted permitless (constitutional) carry.

Alan Gottlieb (left) honored Dave Workman with the Lifetime
Achievement award from the Citizens Committee for the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms at last month’s Gun Rights Policy Conference.

Personal Honors

At the recent GRPC, this correspondent was honored to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to be named to the Joseph P. Tartaro II “Hall of Fame.”

Tartaro was the longtime president of the Second Amendment Foundation and executive editor of Gun Week and then TheGunMag.com, where I am now editor-in-chief. He was what Central Casting would have offered as the quintessential “crusty” old newspaper editor, a sharp-eyed reader with an excellent grasp of the English language, and a veritable walking encyclopedia of the history of the gun rights movement. And he was my friend.

Dave was also named to the Joseph P. Tartaro Hall of Fame,
making him the only double award recipient in the 38-year history
of the conference, which was held in Phoenix.

I recently announced my pending retirement from that position — don’t worry, I’m not departing from Insider Online or GUNS Magazine — because at my age, it’s time to slow down a little. I’ve been working for SAF and CCRKBA for more than 23 years, which came after spending 21 years at the old Fishing & Hunting News, which came after nearly seven years at a little weekly newspaper in Washington State.

There is a lot of brass in my workshop which needs reloading, and a fair amount of firewood still in need of cutting, splitting and stacking in the woodshed. Who knows, I may even find time to press a trigger!

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Mass Confusion Over New York’s New CCW, Ammunition, & Gun Transfer Laws by Roger Katz

Post author By Grumpy
Post date October 26, 2023
No Comments on Mass Confusion Over New York’s New CCW, Ammunition, & Gun Transfer Laws by Roger Katz

Opinion and Not Legal Advice

New York’s Gun Law Amendments: The Hochul Government’s changes are viewed as worsening the issues and not aligning with recent Supreme Court rulings.
Opposition to the Second Amendment: New York’s leadership, especially under Hochul and Cuomo, is criticized for curbing Second Amendment rights.
Ammunition Background Check Issues: Hochul’s attempt at implementing background checks for ammunition mirrors Cuomo’s failed 2013 attempt, causing processing delays.
Unclear Leadership: The recent resignation of the New York Superintendent of State Police, Steven Nigrelli, adds to the uncertainty and complexity of gun law enforcement.
Controversial Gun Policies: Policies around firearm storage, proof, and fees for background checks are being challenged as infringements on citizen rights.

Executive Orders Rule Regulation Red Tape — iStock

New York’s licensed firearms dealers and gun ranges are getting swamped with questions over confusing new laws concerning concealed handgun carry licenses, ammunition, and firearms “transfers” (that is to say, purchases, trade-ins, and giveaways).

In this article, we address these important and timely issues and provide our take, attempting clarification on what the law is.

On enactment and enforcement of York’s Concealed “Carried Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), including recent amendments to the CCIA, licensed firearms dealers and those also operating gun ranges have unfairly suffered the brunt of attacks by frustrated New Yorkers who have seen constant and infuriating delays in their taking possession of firearms and ammunition.

These delays did not occur prior to the amendments to New York’s Gun Law which points to a disturbing fact: the Hochul Government’s changes to the Gun Law, purporting to comply with the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, did no such thing. In many ways, the Government’s amendments to the Gun Law made matters worse.

Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany simply gave lip service to the Bruen rulings. As a matter of fact, the Hochul Government merely continues the policy established by her predecessor Andrew Cuomo. The aim of this State Government in the Twenty-First Century is to continue the process of further constraining and constricting the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York, and to do so with increasing rapidity.

It is therefore business as usual for a New York Government that is virulently opposed to the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights.

And it isn’t only New York civilians who are facing frustrations and confusion. The new amendment is also impacting active-duty New York Police Officers. And both citizen civilians and police officers are all taking out their frustration on the wrong people: the Gun Dealer and Gun Range Owner.

This impossible situation is all by design and then enhanced and perpetuated by the Hochul Government.

Is there any way out of this morass?

Yes. But it is important to understand that Hochul’s recent “ammunition” amendment to the Handgun Law isn’t alone the cause of the problem. It is simply a reflection of the New York Government’s long-standing and deep-seated abhorrence of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms and the Government’s contempt for those citizens residing in New York who are intent on exercising their right, regardless of the many obstacles placed in their path by the Government.

It is also important to understand that this new amendment isn’t a standalone provision. It is simply the most recent addition to the Hochul Government’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”).

Moreover, the ammunition background check requirement is not something new that Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany dreamed up. It has been done before.

Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, tried to impose an ammunition background check system on New York firearms owners in 2013—ten years before the passage of Hochul’s CCIA. Cuomo’s ammunition background check provision was written into the New York Safe Act of 2013. It didn’t pan out, then, just as it isn’t panning out now. The Superintendent of the New York State Police could not get the damn thing to work even in 2014, one year after the Safe Act was implemented. And it was costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.

So, Cuomo scrapped it, and the Superintendent of State Police and those working to get the thing operational breathed a sigh of relief.

Hochul never pointed this little matter out to the public when she resurrected Cuomo’s little scheme.

She, too, is having problems implementing this ammunition background check system—hence the delays in processing transfers of ammunition and firearms. Nothing has changed, ten years after Cuomo originally promulgated an ammunition background check provision and placed it in the Safe Act.

The difference between Hochul and Cuomo is that Hochul doesn’t mind the constant problems and obviously doesn’t care about the many people—citizen civilians, licensed gun dealers and owners of gun ranges, and even active-duty New York Police officers—voicing vociferous and incessant complaints and doing so with justification.

If Hochul is going to create a mechanism of enforcement, then at least make the damn thing work. Otherwise, do away with it. But she won’t do that.

She won’t do that because it is obvious that Hochul relishes the delays. Otherwise, she, like Cuomo, would have either scrapped the thing or would have urged the State Legislature in Albany to formally repeal the amendment or she would have placed continual pressure on the Superintendent of State Police who is tasked with getting this thing to work efficiently and effectively.

But, as far as we can tell, Hochul has done none of these things and has no plans to do so. She simply doesn’t care. She doesn’t care because she is doing exactly what her wealthy benefactors, and what the Biden Administration, and what those citizens residing in New York, who voted her into Office, want her to do. Hochul knows she is on safe ground politically on this, and that is all that matters to her—at least at this moment. Hopefully, this will change as increasing violent crime and the frustration of the public ramps up.

But, what about the New York Superintendent of State Police?

Does he care about the problems he is faced with in getting a notoriously difficult database up and running? This thing does, after all, sit on his lap.

Well, he doesn’t care either because, at this moment, there is no New York Superintendent of State Police.

Acting NYS Police Superintendent Steven Nigrelli resigns Screengrab NYPost 10-21-2023

Steven Nigrelli, the Acting Superintendent and the most recent Superintendent resigned his post on September 23, 2023, after Governor Hochul refused to make his position permanent, ostensibly because he faced employment harassment charges.

See, e.g., the article published in the New York Post.
Nigrelli’s resignation took effect on October 6. See Spectrum 1 News.

So, who is the new acting Superintendent of State Police? Who can say? We don’t know. No news account to date we are aware of has reported an appointment of a new acting Superintendent of State Police. So, if Hochul did appoint someone, anyone, she failed to mention that person’s name. And, if she is considering an appointment, she hasn’t made that fact known either.

This only complicates matters, not only for the State Police that cannot get the NICS database working but for every New Yorker who suffers a delay in obtaining either a firearm or ammunition.

New York law now requires a Licensed Gun Dealer and Gun Range Owner to run NICS background checks only through the Superintendent of State Police and not directly through the Federal Government for firearms and ammunition transfers. And keep in mind that, even if Hochul authorized Licensed New York Gun Dealers and owners of Gun Ranges to utilize the Federal NICS system for undertaking background checks, the FBI only does background checks involving transfers of firearms. They are not legally authorized, even if they were willing to do checks on those individuals who simply wish to purchase ammunition.

And this delay is affecting active-duty police officers as well because they are not exempted from the NICS background check requirement either for the purchase of ammunition or for the purchase of firearms beyond Departmental-issued firearms.

If there is a delay in running a check, everyone is, then, in the same boat.

But none of this negatively impacts your run-of-the-mill criminal element or murderous international cartel member that, thanks to Biden’s Open Border misadventure, has enabled millions of illegal aliens to take up residence in our Nation, and like a horrific viral infection, these illegals have coursed through the entire body politic.

The criminal element doesn’t bother with Hochul Gun Regime compliance matters, anyway.

If criminals get hit with a gun charge among other things, these noxious elements can expect a lenient judicial system to give them a slap on the wrist and send them on their merry way to create more mayhem for both police and the average citizen. And this is exactly what is happening in New York.

*For those readers interested in the specific operative State Statutes and Municipal Codes, Rules, and Regulations, feel free to contact the Arbalest Quarrel directly or through Ammoland Shooting Sports News, and we will be happy to provide you with the citations.

To Lawfully Carry A Handgun In New York, the City Government Still Requires A Person To Acquire A Valid Concealed Handgun Carry License That IS Issued By The NYPD License Division

One burning question concerns whether, under the CCIA, a valid concealed handgun carry license issued in a New York county or municipality other than the City of New York enables a license holder to carry his or her handgun for self-defense IN the City of New York.

The answer is an emphatic “no.” Handgun Preemption Laws that most States follow have no application in an Anti-Second Amendment State like New York.

This means that, as long as New York City, or any other county or city in New York, establishes rules and codes that appear legally consistent with the State’s Handgun Law—found in Penal Code Section 400.00 et. seq.—then those jurisdictions are free to create and implement new rules, codes, and regulations that are more detailed and potentially tougher than the State’s own Handgun Law requirements. This has always been true of New York City.

Even with the passage of the CCIA in July 2022, State law does not preempt the Rules of the City of New York on the matter of the City’s continuing refusal to honor the validity of concealed carry licenses issued by another New York jurisdiction.

Anyone who applies for a New York City Handgun Concealed Carry License must comply with the City’s stringent Handgun Rules, the NYPD License Division enforces those Rules rigidly. This means that if a person wishes to carry his or her concealed handgun in New York City, that person MUST first acquire a valid New York City-issued handgun carry license.

But, wouldn’t that mean, from a logical standpoint, that a rule, code, or regulation that’s more stringent than the State law, is, by logical implication, illegal by the very reason that such rule, code, or regulation is more restrictive than the State Law?

Of course. But when was a New York Gun Law ever internally consistent, let alone consistent with the Second Amendment of the Bill of the Rights of the U.S. Constitution?

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement in Bruen, sure. But this doesn’t legally prevent any jurisdiction in New York, be it municipal or county, from establishing its own Gun rules, codes, or regulations, applicable to that jurisdiction that a prospective handgun carry applicant must follow.

New York City requires anyone who wishes to carry a handgun lawfully in the City to obtain a handgun carry license issued by the NYPD License Division, regardless of the fact that a person may already possess a valid handgun carry license issued by another New York City or County.

Doesn’t The Curtailment Of The Proper Cause Requirement Negate The Need To Acquire Multiple New York Concealed Carry Licenses

The fact that no jurisdiction in New York is allowed any longer to require a person to show extraordinary (“Proper Cause”) need as a condition for obtaining a handgun carry license doesn’t legally prevent any city or county from requiring compliance with its own peculiar rules, codes, and regulations involving concealed handgun carry licenses.

In that case, a city or county can mandate that a person obtain a concealed handgun carry license for that jurisdiction, regardless of any other valid New York concealed handgun carry license he or she might happen to hold, applicable for the specific county or city.

At the moment, New York City is the only jurisdiction, now as before, that requires a person to acquire a license to lawfully carry in the City. Nothing in the CCIA changes that old mandate.

Remaining New York Gun-Related Questions Not Presently Before The Courts

One Thorny Question Concerns Whether A Person Domiciled in a Jurisdiction Outside of New York Can Obtain a New York Concealed Handgun Carry License

A New York Gun Dealer asked the Arbalest Quarrel the other day whether a person residing in another State can obtain a New York State handgun license.

The New York State Gun Law doesn’t assert categorically that a person must be domiciled in New York to obtain a handgun carry license. New York case law bears that out. So, the consensus of opinion in the Courts to date is that a person need not be domiciled in New York to obtain a New York Concealed Handgun Carry License.

However, an out-of-state applicant must still comply with both the training and “Good Moral Character” requirements of the CCIA and other applicable State and Federal Statutes.

A Second Thorny Question Concerns The Legality Of Charging A Person Fees For The Purchase Of A Firearm And Ammunition.

The fees are assessed by the State Police, ostensibly to cover the cost of undertaking a background check on a person to verify the person is not under Statutory disability that would preclude the transfer of a firearm and ammunition to that person.

The fee for the transfer of a firearm has increased. But New York never before charged a fee for the purchase of ammunition. It does so now. A fee of $2.50 is now assessed for the background check that the State Police now undertakes on the purchase of ammunition.

Note: The fee of $2.50 applies only to the background check itself, not to the number of boxes of ammunition a person purchases.

But each time a person purchases a new box or boxes of ammunition, there is a new $2.50 fee imposed because the State Police is required to undertake a new background check on that person. It therefore, behooves a person to purchase as much ammunition as he can afford at any one time to keep the fee at a straight $2.50.

A Couple More Points Concerning Fee Assessment On Firearm And Ammunition Transfers

First, the background check is charged to the seller of firearms and ammunition, not the buyer. A seller must provide the State Police with a valid Credit Card. The State Police applies a charge to the seller’s credit card immediately. The seller doesn’t eat the charge but passes the fee onto the purchaser. This is perfectly legal. This creates consternation, and that is understandable. A gun dealer and gun range owner have substantial expenses. They have to make a living, too.

If there is a delay—the usual occurrence—in completing the NICS background check, the transferee must still reimburse the seller of the firearm or ammunition immediately even though the transferee doesn’t take immediate possession of the firearm or ammunition. That is one reason why a person—a civilian citizen or active-duty police officer—gets upset with the Gun Dealer or the owner of the Gun Range. The transferee pays out of pocket immediately and gets nothing for his troubles as he must await the State Police processing of the transfer. That can take hours or even days.

Second, are both the fees and the dollar amounts of those fees lawful? They are. New York law specifies the State Police can assess fees for conducting NICS background checks and also provides a mechanism for determining what dollar amount is lawful.

A Third Thorny Question Pertains To The Legality Of Agency Policy

A third question is whether the Superintendent of the New York State Police can require a person who owns and possesses several firearms to show proof of having acquired a firearm safe to store those firearms.

A licensed New York Gun Dealer and the owner of a Gun Range has posed this question to us.

The New York State Police has required a person who holds several firearms on a restricted handgun premise license to present the State Police with a photograph of that safe.

This suggests that the person does not presently have a firearm safe, which is an expensive purchase, and would probably wish to defer the purchase of a safe if that were possible. It isn’t.

We believe that the State Police can require proof of purchase of a firearm safe once a New York premise license details possession of a certain (arbitrary) number of firearms on a premise license.

Is this true? If so, why?

According to New York Courts, the question is considered more a matter of policy than of law.

But Gun Policy, apart from State Statutes or County or Municipal code, rule, or regulation, still operates with the force of law.

New York Courts have dealt with this issue and have so stated.

When a complainant contests a “Gun Policy, New York Courts have said that the complainant must prove that a given New York Gun Policy is “arbitrary and capricious” before a Court will strike that Policy down.

This follows from the “Primary Jurisdiction of Agency Rule” that Courts have followed since U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the Chevron case that was decided decades ago, and a long line of cases following Chevron, since.

This Term, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a renewed look at Chevron and is considering either constraining the Court’s rulings in that case or overturning the rulings of Chevron outright.

The Biden Administration is apoplectic with rage over this.

But, at the moment, Courts generally acquiesce to agency decisions because of Chevron. Agencies have tremendous discretion. And, so, failure to prove to the satisfaction of a Court that a gun “policy” is “arbitrary and capricious”—a difficult standard to meet and the burden of which falls on the complainant—the policy will stand.

New York Police Departments are, therefore, given substantial freedom of action to create and implement policy directed at firearms licensing requirements.

This also follows from the fact—as New York Courts routinely make as asserted in their rulings, and that remains “Black Letter Law”—that, while the keeping and bearing of arms remains a basic and indisputable Right, the licensing of one to keep and bear arms remains a privilege.

The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out that possessing a license (a Government bestowed privilege) as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of a fundamental, unalienable Right is not only logically fallacious and legally unsupportable but also nonsensical.

So, unless, or until, the U.S. Supreme Court has the courage to abolish the nonsense of allowing a State or Federal Government to license exercise of a God-Given Right, the citizen will continue to suffer the consequences of the rudeness of State actors who refuse to countenance the sanctity of natural law, eternal rights.

And the worst consequence by far is the insinuation of Tyranny upon us and our inability to effectively contend with that Tyranny if the citizenry is unable to bear arms to defeat it.

That, of course, is what a Treacherous Government’s concern is really all about—the power of the armed citizenry to thwart the will of the Tyrant who would dare subjugate the common man.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with ensuring “Public Safety” and preventing “Gun Violence.” Those things are nothing more than makeweights, mere cliché, that only a fool would believe. And there are, unfortunately, plenty of them that reside amongst us.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

New WA gun laws to set cap on number of firearms owned by farmers, recreational shooters | ABC New

Post author By Grumpy
Post date October 19, 2023
No Comments on New WA gun laws to set cap on number of firearms owned by farmers, recreational shooters | ABC New

All About Guns Gun Fearing Wussies

Culver City purchases closing gun store to prevent another from opening by: Travis Schlepp

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 28, 2023
No Comments on Culver City purchases closing gun store to prevent another from opening by: Travis Schlepp

A soon-to-be vacant gun store in Culver City has a new owner: the city itself.

Earlier this month, Culver City announced plans to purchase the Martin B. Retting Gun Store on Washington Boulevard for a price tag of more than $6 million.

The gunshop was a mainstay in Culver City for more than six decades, but in July, its longtime owners announced the store would be closing shop.

After 65 years in business, with the company staying in the hands of various members of the Retting family throughout, retirement beckoned its current owners.

“Despite having overcome and flourished after everything the firearms industry could throw at us, it turns out that the one thing we can’t defeat is the inevitable march of time,” store management wrote in a note to customers posted on its website.

The Martin B. Retting Gun Store in Culver City is shown on Sept. 27, 2023. The gun store has a new owner—the city itself. (KTLA)

The store became the subject of public ire in recent years due to its close proximity to La Ballona Elementary School.

It was also listed in a 2022 report by the California Department of Justice identifying it as one of the state’s top sources of guns that were illegally possessed, were used in the commission of a crime, or were suspected of having been used in a crime.

Years ago, Culver City passed an ordinance that prohibits gun sellers from operating businesses near schools, but the gun store received leniency due to its longtime residency and was allowed to keep doing business.

But those rights were transferrable, officials said, meaning if the storefront were to ever be sold, a new one could quickly take its place.

Yasmine Imani-McMorrin, the city’s vice mayor, said the city listened to input from the community and determined many were worried about public safety if a new store were to open.

“They had concerns about their families’ well-being,” Imani-Mcmorrin told KTLA’s Rachel Menitoff.

At a Sept. 11 city council meeting, the council met to discuss the sale and listen to feedback from the community. A crowd of mostly supporters gathered in the chambers to urge councilmembers to vote in support of the city’s purchase.

“Ending gun sales in our school zones will have an impact on our children and families that will be felt for generations,” said Melody Hanson, a mother and member of Culver 878, a local gun safety advocacy group.

After public comment ended, the council unanimously voted in favor of purchasing the property for $6.5 million. But despite the unanimous support from the council, not all in Culver City were encouraged by the sale.

Gary Zeiss, a Culver City resident who called into oppose the purchase, raised concerns about the overall cost of the property, which he said was significantly above market value.

“I am not a Second Amendment proponent by any stretch of the imagination, however I am a proponent of good government,” Zeiss said. “There’s no evidence that the value of the property is in any way proportional to the value of other properties in the area.”

Zeiss also questioned why the property was being purchased without any definitive plans on how it will be used.

In a statement provided to KTLA Wednesday, Mayor Albert Vera confirmed that there was no immediate plan for the property, but said it will eventually serve the community as a whole.

“The City’s decision to purchase the building is in large part from listening to the community and its desire to have a different use for that location. It will be an involved process with the community on the next steps for that building and what it ultimately will become,” the statement reads.

The Martin B. Retting Gun Store initially planned to shutter its doors at the end of July, but it remained open as recently as early September. Despite the retirement of its owners, guns and other merchandise were being sold at their original prices because the business closure was “not a liquidation, clearance or distress sale.”

The store’s phone number has since been disconnected.

—————————————————————————————-Now I am of mixed minds about this subject. For the following reason below.

In that I now have one less Gunshop to go to here in LA LA Land. A dying breed believe me!!

As usual Government has once again shown its ability to spend a LOT of money for basically symbolic reasons. Also I have been to their shop a couple of times. Now they had a great selection of $$$$ guns and a horrible attitude to boot.

Now for the good news. The owners with their backs to the wall were able to make the enemy pay a mighty hefty price for its victory. A weirdly shaped brick buildong with piss poor parking.

Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Seeking Attention, Not Solutions in New Mexico

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 26, 2023
No Comments on Seeking Attention, Not Solutions in New Mexico

After several weeks of the abject failure of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s (D) attempt to suspend constitutional rights in her state, there are a number of theories as to what, exactly, she was hoping to accomplish. First, and foremost, though, it appears to have been little more than a PR stunt. She all but said as much.

After receiving public opposition to her outlandish announcement of an unconstitutional 30-day ban on open and concealed carry of firearms in public places in Bernalillo County, followed quickly by numerous lawsuits and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcing the ban, part of Lujan Grisham’s response to the TRO was to state, “Over the past four days (since issuing the order), I’ve seen more attention on resolving the crisis of gun violence than I have in the past four years.”

So she apparently got the publicity she was craving.

Not only is her comment a bald-faced lie, though, it’s an admission of failure, as Lujan Grisham has been in office for the past four years, and her party has controlled both chambers of the New Mexico legislature over that same time period. If she hasn’t been able to enact the laws she thinks will address violent crime involving those who use firearms in an illegal fashion over the last four years, either she is bad at governing, or her ideas are simply wildly unpopular or complete failures at achieving their alleged goals.

Probably a bit of all of that, really.

For the past four years, there has been a great deal of “attention” in the legislature on Lujan Grisham’s notion that infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners will somehow stop violent criminals from being violent criminals. Just go to NRAILA.org, then scroll down and use the filter to select New Mexico and All Dates. There have been countless anti-gun bills introduced, and some have even passed to become law. None have proven to be capable of reducing the violent acts of criminals misusing firearms.

Speaking of the apparent unpopularity of her ideas, one cannot help but notice the lack of support for her PR stunt. Honestly, it’s a bit surprising, knowing just how radical the anti-Second Amendment community is.

Lujan Grisham, during her press conference announcing her attempt to suspend the rights of law-abiding gun owners, stated that she had spoken to the White House prior to enacting the order. She didn’t say what kind of feedback she received, but considering there have not been any comments from anyone in the Biden administration about her actions—actions that have received national coverage by many media outlets—it may be safe to presume the subject matter is as toxic to Biden as his son’s legal problems.

Anti-gun organizations have been equally mum. None of the groups that supported Lujan Grisham’s election—like Everytown/Moms Demand and Giffords—have issued a single statement in support of the governor’s stunt. Normally, anti-gun organizations are eager to praise the actions of anti-gun politicians; especially when they are put in the national spotlight.

But so far, all we’ve heard are crickets.

Similarly, these groups tend to file amicus briefs in support of anti-gun efforts that are challenged in court. Again, nothing on the aforementioned groups’ websites mentions filing any briefs in support of Lujan Grisham.

In fact, New Mexico’s attorney general, Raul Torrez (D), has publicly stated he will not defend the governor’s order in court, noting that it is clearly unconstitutional. Torrez, it should be noted, was also endorsed by the anti-gun groups Giffords and Everytown/Moms Demand.

Even some of the most vocal, radical anti-gun individuals called out Lujan Grisham for overstepping her authority with the unconstitutional ban on the right to carry. Anti-gun US Representative Ted Lieu (D-Cal.) posted to X (formerly Twitter) that the order “violates the U.S. Constitution,” and that “(t)here is no such thing as a public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.” Anti-gun activist David Hogg, as if cutting and pasting from some damage control script sent out by “moderate” anti-gunners, used virtually the same language as Lieu about a “public health emergency exception.”

Then, the very weekend the order was first put into place, peaceful protestors in Albuquerque carried firearms in the city—both openly and, presumably, concealed—with not a single arrest made or citation issued.

Some of the more radical political operatives in the country may not have realized these were peaceful protests, as no riots took place, no businesses were looted or burned down, and nobody was assaulted. Nonetheless, they were the epitome of peaceful protests.

Thus far, her actions have resulted in numerous legal challenges, including one filed by NRA-ILA, and one TRO issued by a Biden-appointed judge. Yes, you read that right, the first of what will likely be numerous defeats for Lujan Grisham’s PR stunt was issued by a judge appointed by Joe Biden.

After the TRO was issued, the governor amended her order to narrow the unconstitutional suspension of the right to carry firearms to apply to “public parks or playgrounds” in the affected area. Of course, diminishing the area an unconstitutional order impacts does not make it less unconstitutional, it just has the potential to decrease the number of people who might be affected. Virtually every legal challenge to the order, even as amended, shall likely continue. We know ours will.

But if you need any more evidence that the governor was merely looking for attention, rather than actual solutions, again, just consider what she says. When asked directly, during her own press conference announcing her action, if she thought criminals would obey the order, she said no, but thought it would send a message. She even openly admitted that she was issuing the order without having figured out how it would be enforced.

“Sending a message” may be one of the worst defenses of an unconstitutional law we’ve heard, but considering she admits her order will not affect criminals, it may be the only defense she has.

All About Guns California Gun Fearing Wussies

Full California: The Golden State Legislature Stacks Up Gun Control Bills as the Session Ends By Larry Keane

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 20, 2023
No Comments on Full California: The Golden State Legislature Stacks Up Gun Control Bills as the Session Ends By Larry Keane

The deadline for the California state legislature to pass bills out of chamber is next week. Anti-gun state legislators are ramming through even more gun control legislation for legislative action with that deadline looming.

California already can rightfully argue they are the strictest gun control state in the country. Gov. Gavin Newsom is even pushing for a Constitutional amendment to do away with Second Amendment rights. That’s not stopping them from rushing to implement even more gun control in the waning days of the session.

It will be a whiplash final week for bill movement. Here’s a rundown of what’s happening in Sacramento.

Senate Bill 241 passed out of the Assembly and is headed to the Senate. The bill requires California firearm retailers and their employees to undergo annual training courses which are implemented by the California Department of Justice (CalDOJ). The training requirements include “how to recognize and identify straw purchasers and fraudulent activity;” “how to recognize and identify indicators that an individual intends to use a firearm for self-harm;” “how to prevent theft or burglary of firearms and ammunition;” and “how to teach consumers rules of firearm safety, including, but not limited to, the safe handling and storage of firearms.”

The firearm industry rejects the bill’s mandates and penalties but agrees these are important aspects to owning and operating a firearm retail location. It’s why NSSF has provided training, education and resources to industry members and promotes the Real Solutions. Safer Communities. initiative.

Rather than forcing expensive and time-consuming requirements on retailers, NSSF provides access and materials from the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy campaign to reduce illegal “straw purchases,” Operation Secure Store retailer security program and Project ChildSafe safe firearm storage initiative. Each of these programs, as well as others, have had a real, meaningful impact on making communities safer without imposing costly mandates and red tape on small businesses.

Assembly Bill 1406 passed both the Assembly and Senate and is heading to Gov. Newsom for signature. AB 1406 would expand the existing 10-day waiting period on the sale or transfer of a firearm to include a possible 30-day state waiting period.

The existing 10-day waiting period is already being challenged in court as unnecessary and that violates law-abiding Californians’ Second Amendment rights. After all, rights delayed are rights denied. A successful National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification already reveals whether the buyer is prohibited from owning a firearm or not, and a federal background check window exists for the minute percentage of NICS checks that come back in delay rather than approved or denied.

Senate Bill 368 is another bill that would impact firearm retailers and also make it more difficult to help reduce the tragedy of firearm deaths by suicide. SB 368 is heading to Gov. Newsom for signature after passing out of both the Assembly and the Senate. The bill adds additional requirements and red tape for firearm retailers to navigate should a person experiencing temporary mental health challenges decide to give their firearm to the dealer for storage. Similar laws in New York and Massachusetts end up discouraging individuals from pursuing this option and often the firearm dealer is left in a difficult place to navigate penalties and possible violations due to the firearm transfer mandates.

Assembly Bill 1089 passed both the Assembly and Senate and is heading to Gov. Newsom’s desk for possible signature. AB 1089 prohibits anyone, including a gunsmith or hobbyist, from manufacturing a home-built firearm and requires those individuals to register as a state-licensed firearm manufacturer. Building firearms at home has been common since before the founding of the country.

One of the most egregious pieces of legislation to see significant movement in Sacramento is Assembly Bill 28. AB 28 already passed both chambers and is already on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for possible signature. AB 28 has made a wave of national news already and would impose an 11 percent excise tax on firearm retailers and manufacturers for all sales of guns or ammunition. The Associated Press reported, “California’s proposed tax would not apply to people who buy the guns. Instead, the state would make the businesses that sell guns and ammunition pay the tax. However, most of the time businesses will raise prices to cover the cost of the tax.”

Senate Bill 2 creates a new arbitrary system and criteria for firearm permits making it immensely harder for citizens to obtain carry permits. This is Gov. Newsom’s response to the Bruen decision. Since he didn’t like the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, he took the same tactic and sought legislation to make it nearly impossible to legally carry a firearm in California – even if an individual has a permit. The bill would make nearly every public place in California a “sensitive place” and deny law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm.

While there are still only a handful of days remaining, the firearm industry is also watching to see if legislators move a California state Merchant Category Code (MCC) bill (AB 1587) to track individuals who make firearm purchases using a credit card, as well as a microstamping bill (SB 452) which would require the state to study the unworkable and flawed technology on new firearms in the state.

NSSF will be closely monitoring the situation in Sacramento.

All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

NO GREAT SURPRISE

BIDEN’S BLANKET ENDORSEMENT AS GUN CONFERENCE LOOMS

WRITTEN BY DAVE WORKMAN

President Joe Biden recently picked up a literal “blanket endorsement”
from several gun control lobbying groups for his 2024 re-election run.
(Official White House portrait, public domain)

In politics, as well as business, timing is everything, so let’s take a look at current events and test the theory.

Last month, in something of a first, it seems like every gun prohibitionist lobbying group on the map joined together to endorse Joe Biden for re-election in 2024. This is quite possibly the biggest non-surprise in recent political history, and it tells us something important.

Gun grabbers, as my pal Alan Gottlieb at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) calls them, are dead serious about keeping their guy in the White House for another four years.

Adding to the mix, just about this time last month, CNN was reporting how the president would be making an announcement right after Labor Day about how gun control would be a centerpiece in his campaign over the next 14 months.

By now, if CNN was right, we should know what this was all about. It was supposed to include expanding the definition of what a firearms dealer is, and whether active gun traders and/or buyers and sellers should have a federal firearms license. There was more mentioned, and none of it was good news for gun owners.

Another talking point was supposed to be expanded background checks, or so-called “universal background checks,” which translates to more red tape and inconvenience for honest citizens and no problem at all for criminals who simply bypass background checks. There was some question about whether Biden could do this without legislation, which would likely be DOA on Capitol Hill, with an election year looming.

What really makes this interesting is — as I mentioned right up front — is the timing. The weekend of Sept. 22-24, the 38th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference will unfold in Phoenix, Arizona. Would anyone care to bet what and who will be the main subjects of discussion during that lively 72-hour gathering?

Alan Gottlieb created the Gun Rights Policy Conference
38 years ago. It has grown to be an important grassroots event.

What is the Gun Rights Conference?

For the past 38 years, gun rights advocates and grassroots activists from across the country have gathered at some hotel in some city for a weekend of panel discussions, reports, networking, socializing and learning about Second Amendment issues from the top names in the gun rights movement.

The Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC), which is co-hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and CCRKBA, is something of a “Who’s Who” event. Over the years, it has attracted leaders from virtually every gun rights group on the map.

We’re talking NRA, GOA, National Shooting Sports Foundation, SAF and CCRKBA of course; Illinois State Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, Washington Arms Collectors, Florida Carry, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and so many other groups it’s impossible to name them all.

GRPC was and remains the brainchild of the aforementioned Alan Gottlieb. Unlike a National Rifle Association convention, this event was designed to always be an educational gathering. It is oriented toward grassroots activism, and over the past couple of years, features have been added.

Last year, there was a day-long legal symposium which drew several attorneys who are getting deeply involved in Second Amendment litigation. In conjunction with the conference there has been a gathering of bloggers and podcasters.

The first one of these gatherings was held in Bellevue, Washington, and I was there. It was, from a journalist’s perspective, one of those rare opportunities to listen and get an understanding of how the most energetic folks in the gun rights movement talked and thought. Things haven’t really changed much; the faces, of course, but not the philosophy. If you want to understand gun rights from the ground up, this little soiree is just what you need.

Among this year’s confirmed speakers will be American Handgunner and GUNS Magazine columnist Massad Ayoob, who happens to also serve as president of the SAF. He will be joined by radio legends Tom Gresham (SAF Board of Trustees) and Mark Walters (CCRKBA Board of Directors), SAF and CCRKBA leader Alan Gottlieb, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, journalist John Fund and many others. A full program should be available online within days right here.

Massad Ayoob is no stranger to readers of American Handgunner
and GUNS magazine. What many don’t know is that he is the
president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Only twice has the event been totally online — during the COVID-19 pandemic — and the virtual GRPC events were viewed online by tens of thousands of people.

Panel discussions frequently involve politicians, academics, attorneys, writers, historians, firearms trainers, and local activists.

There are two receptions, one Friday evening and the other Saturday evening. Saturday’s agenda runs from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and includes an awards luncheon. Sunday’s agenda runs from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

For those unable to attend, the sessions will be live-streamed, and you should be able to hook up by visiting the SAF website.

Who Backs Biden?

Returning to endorsements for the president, it’s a veritable Rogue’s Gallery of gun control extremists.

The lineup includes Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, Team Enough, Community Justice Action Fund, and Giffords. Would you believe it, Spectrum News identifies this bunch as “gun safety groups.” (If you ever want to have a little fun, ask representatives from any of these groups how many certified “gun safety” instructors they have, where they offer “gun safety” courses and what kinds of guns they personally own.)

When CNN announced Biden’s campaign plans, the report said he would “make gun safety a central issue of his reelection campaign.” What’s he going to do, encourage people to take an NRA home firearms safety course?

The courts have lately been unkind to gun control, but not entirely hostile. After U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas ruled ATF overstepped its authority in writing a “new rule” on parts kits — the so-called “ghost guns” — the Supreme Court reversed and allowed the rule to stand, at least while the actual case makes its way through the lower courts.

Hunter Biden’s so-called “sweetheart deal” on drug charges and alleged gun law violations was derailed by a judge several weeks ago, so that could come up during the campaign. There was a strange silence from the gun control crowd when Hunter’s “deal” on the gun law violation was announced. Hey, if it weren’t for the double standard, the Left would have no standards at all.

But, these people vote, so we better vote, too.

Fatal Choice

An Indiana man made the fatal mistake of apparently driving into the front yard of a couple in the Salem area, then pulling a gun on the male homeowner, according to Fox News.

It was his bad luck the man’s wife was inside. She grabbed her own handgun and shot the suspect — identified as 45-year-old Michael Chastain — fatally. Chastain reportedly had previously dated the couple’s daughter, but she no longer lived at her parents’ home, so it’s not clear why he went there in the first place. It turned out to be the last place he visited, not counting the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Chastain reportedly had a criminal record.

Limping to Jail?

There’s a 23-year-old guy in Hammond, Louisiana, who may be limping into court shortly, thanks to a nastily-placed bullet which hit him just above the knee.

Of course, he earned the lead by allegedly forcing his way into the wrong residence at a mobile home park in Tangipahoa Parish (I can’t pronounce it, either) last month. According to WWL News, the suspect broke in through a window, threatening to kill the homeowner and her family. He also reportedly assaulted a guest in the process. He immediately learned this was the wrong way to win new friends because the female homeowner produced a pistol and plugged him.

Instead of running or even hobbling away, our miscreant reportedly stripped off all of his clothes and then ran to a nearby vehicle, broke a window and tried to barricade himself inside.

If you guessed drugs were somehow involved, you are a good guesser. According to the report, the suspect confessed to the sheriff’s office that he had consumed some “illegal narcotics” prior to the incident. Our model citizen now faces charges including home invasion, second-degree battery, “vehicle burglary,” and resisting arrest.

Personal Honors

New York’s Gun Law Amendments: The Hochul Government’s changes are viewed as worsening the issues and not aligning with recent Supreme Court rulings.

Opposition to the Second Amendment: New York’s leadership, especially under Hochul and Cuomo, is criticized for curbing Second Amendment rights.

Ammunition Background Check Issues: Hochul’s attempt at implementing background checks for ammunition mirrors Cuomo’s failed 2013 attempt, causing processing delays.

Unclear Leadership: The recent resignation of the New York Superintendent of State Police, Steven Nigrelli, adds to the uncertainty and complexity of gun law enforcement.

Controversial Gun Policies: Policies around firearm storage, proof, and fees for background checks are being challenged as infringements on citizen rights.

BIDEN’S BLANKET ENDORSEMENT AS GUN CONFERENCE LOOMS

What is the Gun Rights Conference?