National Post:

The games children play in schoolyards are famously horrible, if you stop and think about them.

Tag, for example, singles out one poor participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized “It,” who runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones. Capture the Flag is nakedly militaristic. British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes. Red Ass, known in America as Butts Up, involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on losers.

But none rouse the passions of reform-minded educational progressives quite like dodgeball, the team sport in which players throw balls at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish them to the sidelines of shame.

When the Canadian Society for the Study of Education meets in Vancouver at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, a trio of education theorists will argue that dodgeball is not only problematic, in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is outright “miseducative.”

I never played dodgeball in gym class.  We played only in boy’s gym class, and the coach made the sides get so close to each other that when we threw the ball at each other, it left whelps when it hit.  We played inside a gym, not outside where it could legitimately be called dodgeball.  We were danger-close.  He called it “murderball,” and we obliged him.

I guess these Canadian theorists wouldn’t like that, huh?  Hey, I was wondering, for men who are headed off to the US Marine Corps to learn to defend the country and who are learning to be men when they are boys, and who must survive in the brutality of combat, will those Canadian “theorists” be there to help the sides hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

As soon as the blood was spilled the controllers came out of the woodwork to shill their ideas.  First up is The Washington Post, or in other words, Jeff Bezos’ and the CIA’s blog.

But details of the rampage include one fact unique to the growing list of active-shooter cases: the assailant used a .45-caliber handgun with extended magazines and a barrel suppressor. This small detail — that the loaded gun was fitted with simple, and lawful, “silencing” equipment — threatens to upend how we understand and train for active-shooter cases in the future.

Let’s stop right there.  I’ve never “trained” for an active shooter situation by learning to “run, hide and fight.”  Only the DHS is stupid enough to purvey such nonsense.

But details of the rampage include one fact unique to the growing list of active-shooter cases: the assailant used a .45-caliber handgun with extended magazines and a barrel suppressor. This small detail — that the loaded gun was fitted with simple, and lawful, “silencing” equipment — threatens to upend how we understand and train for active-shooter cases in the future.

But the Virginia Beach killer seemed to want the anonymity of silence, a tool of the coward, not one seeking fame or a blaze of glory. None of the videos or manifestos we’ve seen from New Zealand to Las Vegas appear to be part of the Virginia Beach story. The killer wanted silence.

Silence is the enemy of time. An entire “run, hide, fight” policy that governs every school, workforce and the first-responder community in active-shooter cases is conditioned on an important premise: that there is situational awareness that shots have been fired, bullets are flying and it’s always best to run the other way. Once you know where the bullets are coming from, you can — as I tell my own kids — “sprint if you can; duck if you can’t; and fight only if you must. I only have one of each of you.”

If she would rather teach her children that than arm defenders around them, she hates her children.  But you see where this is going.  Now the controllers are targeting suppressors.  Next up, USA Today.

It’s not immediately clear how long Friday’s attack lasted, or how much time passed before the first police officers arrived on scene. But some gun control advocates say the suppressor may have caught the victims off guard. One survivor described hearing something that sounded like a nail gun.

“Especially on a handgun, a suppressor will distort the sound in such a way that it would not immediately be recognizable as gunfire to people who sort of know what that sound is,” said David Chipman, a retired agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and now the senior policy adviser with Giffords, a gun-control lobbying group.

Oh, I see.  An “expert.”  It’s always better for your story when you can get an “expert” to weigh in, yes?

But finally, the beloved Donald Trump himself.  Someone baited him with a question about suppressors, and he had this to say.

Q    The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon.  Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t like them at all.

First we had the bump stock ban courtesy of a single, solitary, action by the federal executive remaking federal law on a whim.  Nice precedent, Mr. Trump.  We’ll see that used for very nefarious purposes in the future, no doubt.  Then we had support for red flag laws (or so-called extreme risk protection orders).  Then we had the selection of a gun controller to head the ATF, and finally today we get loathing of suppressors.

In fact it wouldn’t surprise me to see a bill pass the House and Senate headed for Trump’s desk to outlaw them completely, something that is no more than a muffler intended to save the hearing of target shooters and sportsmen.

You see, Trump can honestly claim that he is a defender of the second amendment when his definition of the second amendment is that you get to keep a pistol in your home if the Police say so, and only under certain very strict conditions you may be able to carry it like he does.

It’s a matter of language and world and life view.  His isn’t yours, and yours isn’t his.  When he says he is a defender of the second amendment, he doesn’t mean what you want him to mean.

The perspective from a controller.

At this year’s National Rifle Association annual meeting, President Donald Trump invited some special guests on stage. The first was a young mother from Virginia, April Evans.

“One night in 2015 she was alone with her two-year-old daughter when an intruder broke into her home violently,” said Trump.

“April took care of it.”

The crowd swooned.

[ … ]

“But kind of underlying all of this is a presumption about crime that whatever happens to you it’s probably going to be strangers who perpetrate it,” said Carlson. “It’s going to be sudden, it’s going to be fast and it’s going to be violent. And really the only thing you have to do is figure out how to basically train your muscle memory to respond as fast as possible.”

What gets left out of that narrative, according to Carlson, is that most sexual assaults don’t look like that. Neither does domestic violence.

“You’re experiencing crime and victimization, not as a one-off, acute moment of violence, but it’s generally in the form of mental abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse,” said Carlson.

According to the FBI, attacks from strangers make up less than a third of violent crimes against women. The vast majority of violence women face comes from people they know.

This is an amazing commentary.  It can’t be described any other way than open loathing of women who have defended themselves.  Do you sense the commentary dripping with sarcasm and hatred for women who won’t go silently into the night and perish for the sake of the social planners?

First of all I won’t stipulate to their alleged statistics on anything until I’ve had a chance to review the data and perform the calculations myself.  But let’s grant for the sake of the discussion that they’re right and only a moderate fraction of women defend themselves from strangers intent on raping them or invading their homes to do them harm.

The author’s argument is that she doesn’t care.  She is willing to grant that this fraction gets raped or killed for the sake of gun control.  Her argument is that because she isn’t convinced that this fraction, whatever it is, is worth it, she wants to control means of self defense for everyone.

Only the most crass, blinded and wicked person could develop and perpetrate such an argument.  It’s the same kind of person who seems to dominate the political scene today, with environmentalists who would rather men get eaten by animals than carry weapons in the bush, and women who believe in sacrificing their children to Baal for the sake of convenience or some other reason.

This category of person is dangerous.  They do not believe that mankind is made in God’s image.  They believe they have the right and knowledge to dictate the terms of survival to everyone else, and to them, you are just a statistic.

Never listen to these people except to refute them, teach your family and friends better, and know where the FUSA is headed long term.

Prince Law:

Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a 53 page majority opinion, a 2 page concurring decision by Justice Baer and a 16 page concurring opinion by Justice Dougherty which Justice Mundy joined, in the case of Commonwealth v. Hicks, which addressed whether the mere open or concealed carrying of a firearm constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime.

[ … ]

“Before this Court, the Commonwealth again advanced its “radical position,” Hawkins, 692 A.2d at 1071, in the present iteration contending that police officers are not only entitled, but “duty bound” to seize and investigate the licensing status of every individual who carries a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania. Brief for Commonwealth at 11. We have little difficulty in again rejecting this proposition, because we conclude that the Robinson rule contravenes the Terry doctrine and, indeed, the fundamental guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.

Although the carrying of a concealed firearm is unlawful for a person statutorily prohibited from firearm ownership or for a person not licensed to do so, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105-06, there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance. As a matter of law and common sense, a police officer observing an unknown individual can no more identify whether that individual has a license in his wallet than discern whether he is a criminal. Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity.

If the consequence of our decision is that future courts afford meaningful Fourth Amendment protection to individuals engaged in other commonly licensed activities, that result is preferable to our allowance of governmental overreach that undermines the individual freedom that is essential to our way of life in this constitutional republic.

…

Crime and violence are ever-present threats in society, and it can be tempting to look to the government to provide protection from “dangerous” people with constant vigilance. However, the protections of the Fourth Amendment remain an essential bulwark against the overreaches and abuses of governmental authority over all individuals. Notwithstanding the dangers posed by the few, we must remain wary of the diminution of the core liberties that define our republic, even when the curtailment of individual liberty appears to serve an interest as paramount as public safety. “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

Consistent with the General Assembly’s reservation of the exclusive prerogative to regulate firearms in this Commonwealth, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, the additional requirement that an individual possess a license in order to carry a firearm openly within the City of Philadelphia is prescribed by statute, not by municipal ordinance. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108; see generally Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996).”

So the court did three things: [1] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm in a concealed manner isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (I would have to know the specifics of the case to be able to ascertain why this is important since if the firearm is concealed well, it wouldn’t be seen by anyone), [2] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm openly isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (apparently Pennsylvania has a permitted open carry system, and cops don’t have the right to stop someone who is openly carrying to ask about a permit), and [3] decreed that little tyrants in locales like cities or townships don’t have to right to upend this judgment.

Every once in a while someone gets it right.  I would think that after the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals viz. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, they would stop trying to argue that they have unlimited rights.

But also just as apparent is the fact that the police go from judge to judge, and court to court, until they find someone who agrees with them.

That’s the American way, yes?

News from New Zealand.

New figures show gun owners are holding back on handing in their firearms, because they’re waiting to hear how much the Government will pay for them

Figures released to Newstalk ZB by the New Zealand Police showed that, as of Sunday night, only 530 guns had been handed in since the ban on semi-automatic guns was finalised in early April.

There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it’s estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.

I laughed.

So many breathless articles here in America about how easy it was to make new gun control laws, unlike “Cowboy” America.

So much pining away and wishing for such a society by the progressives, so much desire for a state monopoly on violence.

And now, so much fail.

I laughed.

NSSF:

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has a record of no-nonsense support for the rule of law that clearly extends to respect for the Second Amendment and the firearms industry.

Chuck Canterbury is the President of the 350,000-strong Fraternal Order of Police who would bring to the Director’s office 26 years of law enforcement experience as well as 16 years’ experience in his current role. Canterbury retired as a major with South Carolina’s Horry County Police Department and was inducted into the South Carolina Law Enforcement Hall of Fame.

And as for the evidence for Canterbury’s support for the second amendment?

Canterbury also stood up to billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after the anti-gun funder of Everytown and Moms Demand called the Fraternal Order of Police a “fringe group” for opposing the release of firearms “trace” data which is prohibited by the Tiahrt Amendment. Even Bloomberg’s own police commissioner Ray Kelly opposed the release of ATF trace data. ATF says it shouldn’t be released outside of law enforcement either. Bloomberg didn’t care when he misused this information in so-called “sting” operations against firearms retailers – without the knowledge of either ATF or his own police department – interfering with as many as 18 criminal investigations and forcing ATF to pull agents out of the field for their own protection.

There you have it.  He supports cop safety.  That makes him a second amendment supporter according to the NSSF.

Next up, the American Suppressor Association:

“As the regulating body of our industry, ATF has a tremendous amount of control over our ability to operate and create jobs,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of ASA. “Because of their influence over our businesses, the ATF Director is, for us, one of the most important politically appointed positions that President Trump will fill. His nomination of Mr. Canterbury, which does require Senate confirmation, falls directly in line with his campaign promise to work with the firearms industry and protect the Second Amendment. Mr. Canterbury’s resume and reputation highlight that he is the leader that ATF needs in order to become the bureau that they are intended to be.”

What bureau would that be?  What did the American founders intend a bureau like that to do, sirs?

The NSSF has never been a supporter of the second amendment, and with respect to the American Suppressor Association, I suspect that they have no desire to see suppressors unregulated.  If they weren’t regulated by law, they wouldn’t be able to charge $1000 a piece for their tubes with baffles.

Prior:

Further Fisking Of Chuck Canterbury’s Second Amendment Credentials

Fraternal Order Of Police Chief Chuck Canterbury Picked To Head ATF

TTAG:

In the coming weeks, my company will be making exciting announcements about new opportunities that are important to the future success of our business. We look forward to sharing that news soon as possible. Given the hard work and full-time attention that will be needed as our brands continue to grow, I’ve decided to step down from my position on the NRA’s Board of Directors. It’s been an honor to serve the five million members of the NRA and I will continue standing side-by-side with the millions of Americans who care deeply about defending the Second Amendment.

That’s a rather innocuous statement.  I wonder if this is as presented, or if there is more afoot than he let on in the statement?  Is there some fiduciary responsibility or financial or legal liability associated with being a member of the board from which he is escaping?

I know my readers and I have discussed that before.  The other alternative is that this is a move of protest.