Ammoland.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

The letter shocked Carpenter, who has never had a run-in with the law.

“When I opened the letter stating my CCW was suspended, I was shocked and confused,” Carpenter told AmmoLand News.

Figuring it was a mistake, Carpenter called the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to clear things up since he has never committed domestic violence against anyone. The representative told him he had to get a form from the Clerk of the Courts saying that there weren’t any actions against him.

Carpenter headed to Clerk of the Court’s office to retrieve the required form. When he got there, the Clerk informed him that there was an injunction against a Jonathan Edward Carpenter.

“What do I have to do to prove that you have the wrong Jonathan Edward Carpenter?” he asked the Clerk.

The Clerk instructed Carpenter to go downstairs to talk to the Osceola County Sheriff’s office to clear things up. Carpenter still figuring that it was just a mistake that the Sheriff’s office could quickly clear up went and spoke with him.

The Sheriff’s office supplied Carpenter with a copy of the injunction. In the statement, the plaintiff stated that she rented a room out to a “Jonathan Edward Carpenter” and his girlfriend. She alleged that this Carpenter was a drug dealer who broke her furniture and sold her belongings without her permission. He had a gun, and she feared for her life. She was not sure if the firearm was legal or not.

Read the rest.  And he still doesn’t have his firearms back.  I know I feel safer today.  Do you?

I get to proudly link David Codrea for this tip.  It goes right along with the running gallery of the greats.  I’m not sure what a “double barrel magazine extended clip” is, but I want one.  I really, really want one.  Because.  Double barrel.  Extended.  A clip and magazine all in one.  And all of it double, not single.  The only thing better would be a triple barrel, automatic, high caliber, magazine extended clip.  Somebody get to work on that.

Prior:

• High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up
• The Captain’s Journal » High Ammo Clips
• The Captain’s Journal » Automatic Bullets In Rapid-Fire Magazine Clips
• The Captain’s Journal » Duck Hunting With Bullets
• The Captain’s Journal » Guns, Accoutrements And Idiots
• The Captain’s Journal » The Fully Loaded Ammunition Cartridge
• The Captain’s Journal » The High Magazine Round
• The Captain’s Journal » Mother Jones On “High-Caliber Rifles”
• The Captain’s Journal » The 40-Clip Magazine

CNN:

Rex gives them.

CBS News.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon on Thursday called for a national debate on whether an assault weapons ban that Congress let expire in 2004 would be effective “in keeping weapons made for war out of the hands of mass murderers.”

“In the national conversation around gun safety, we’re encouraged that broad support is emerging to strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger,” he stated. “The reauthorization of the assault weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness in keeping weapons made for war out of the hands of mass murderers.”

David Codrea also saw this today and linked CNN which has essentially the same report. But here’s a warning to CEO McMillon.  We all answer for our decisions, including you.  Remember Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s warnings on gun control.

The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

Government interference with free trade – including that of firearms trade – has no place in the Biblical economy.  Your naïve, childish belief in fortune telling and forecasting the future (i.e., guessing who might commit crimes) is called divination, or witchcraft, in the Bible.  God considers it evil.  And a prohibition on the ownership of weapons interferes with the ability to defend hearth and home, which is tantamount to justifying theft and murder.

You’ve apparently “seen the light” on gun control, jumping in with both feet.  But that light you’re seeing might just be the lake of fire.  Be careful for your soul.

Via WiscoDave and BRVTVS, first, in Banff National Park, Canada.

The Rispolis were asleep in their tent at the park’s Rampart Creek Campground when they were jolted awake after midnight by the wolf.

“It was like something out of a horror movie,” Elisa wrote in the Facebook post.

Matt instantly threw himself in front of his wife and the children, fighting the predator as it ripped apart the tent. While her husband was trying to keep the wolf at bay, Elisa wrote that she lay on top of her two boys to shield them. Together, the couple cried out for help.

Luckily, Fee heard them.

When he arrived at the family’s campsite, Fee told “Calgary Eyeopener” that he saw the wolf attempting to yank something free of the tent, like it was “pulling on a toy.”

“It was big enough that I immediately figured out what it was, which is weird because I’ve never seen one outside of the zoo,” he said. “It was just so much larger than any dog I’ve ever seen.”

Inside the now mostly collapsed dwelling, an intense tug-of-war was unfolding. Elisa wrote that the animal had “started to drag Matt away” and she was holding on to his legs.

“I cannot and don’t think I’ll ever be able to properly describe the terror,” she wrote.

Meanwhile, as Fee ran toward the tent, carrying only the lantern his wife gave him, he devised a hasty plan.

“I just kind of kept running at it and I just kicked it . . . in the back hip area like I was kicking in a door,” he said on the radio show. “I booted it as hard as I could.”

The kick may not have done much physical damage, but Fee said it was enough to startle the wolf into letting Matt go. Then, the animal emerged from the tent and Fee said he “immediately regretted kicking it.”

“I felt like I had kind of punched someone that was way out of my weight class,” he said.

But before Fee had to think of another way to take on the wolf solo, he said Matt, whose “whole half side was just covered in blood,” came flying out of the tent. The two men began screaming at the wolf and hurling rocks about “the size of a head of cabbage” at the animal to drive it back, Fee said. Soon, the wolf was far enough away that the group was able to flee to Fee’s campsite, where they hid in his minivan.

Next up, Vancouver, Canada.

Keeping his bike between him and the bear, he gave it a firm poke with the hiking pole, which led to brief a tug-of-war.

He remembers negotiating with the bear, saying “I know this is your territory, I’m just passing through – we don’t have to do this”.

The grizzly kept coming at him with “methodical, heavy swats” and – as those swats got heavier and stronger – Mr Dowler threw his bike towards it.

That’s when it came for him, biting deep into his abdomen below his ribs.

“It was so much pain and weirdness, I could feel the hot blood,” he says. “I’m being rag-dolled, suspended by my flank by a bear carrying me.”

It dropped him near a ditch about 50ft away and began taking deep bites into his thighs. He tried gouging at the bear’s eyes, and briefly, playing dead.

He then reached for a pocket knife in his right pants pocket – it was painful to do so as he could hear the grating of bear teeth on bone – and went for the bear’s neck. There was a rush of blood and the bear let go and walked away from him, back towards where it had come from.

Do you see anything in common here?  Let me point out two things: [1] Both of these instances occurred where the victim wasn’t carrying a large bore handgun, and [2] both of these instances occurred in a country that prohibits the carrying of large bore handguns.

The solution here isn’t to suggest that we not enjoy the wilderness God gave us.  He commanded us to “subdue the earth.”  The solution here in both instances would have been a large bore handgun.  If you lose a fight like this it will be because you relied on fists, rocks and pocket knives.

Via WiscoDave, William Sullivan writing at American Thinker.

“Machine guns were outlawed because there was no need that justified the risk.  Was that wrong, too?” Cuomo asks.

The short answer is, yes, that was wrong, too — if the Second Amendment is the measure.  And to be clear, the Second Amendment is the only sentence in the Constitution where an individual right to firearms is addressed.

Yet we find several conservatives aligning with Cuomo, in principle, suggesting that automatic weapons, or “machine guns,” have understandably been banned since ancient times (for us), and it was somehow justified as within the government’s right to do so.  For example, Josh Hammer writes at the Daily Wire that, “automatic weapons are already (for all intents and purposes) banned” under the NFA, so new gun control measures on a “cosmetically amorphous” semi-automatic “assault weapons” should not be needed.

That statement not only concedes the left’s position that the federal government had the right to levy such infringements upon the individual right to gun ownership in the first place, but more importantly, it’s not entirely accurate.

I’ll assume that Hammer knows his history, and that by “all intents and purposes,” he means that the NFA made it nearly impossible for the common law-abiding citizen to attain an automatic weapon only because the cost was prohibitive for most common Americans due to the heavy tax laid upon the purchase of one.  It was egregious for the federal government to craft such a law, but perhaps the more important distinction is that there was no federal law suggesting that an American citizen couldn’t legally own a properly registered and purchased “machine gun” for more than 50 years after the NFA was passed, because it was clearly understood that a federal “ban” on such weapons was an infringement upon law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right.

In truth, automatic weapons were not actually “banned” in this country until 1986.  It wasn’t until the farcical passage of the Hughes Amendment as an addendum to the National Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that ownership of any such firearm was truly “banned” by the federal government.

If you ever imagined that our elected betters are actively working toward the preservation of our constitutionally protected rights, watch this video of Charlie Rangel leading the House in a “voice vote” to allow the Hughes Amendment, and allowing only two minutes of raucous “deliberation.”  It is among the lowest and most ridiculous moments in the history of our American Congress — and that’s saying something.

It has been reported that President Reagan considered vetoing the FOPA due to the inclusion of the Hughes Amendment, but was convinced by the NRA to not do so, believing that the “Supreme Court would throw that measure out as unconstitutional,” thereby “correcting the defect in new law.”  That challenge to the unlawful “machine gun ban” never came.  And now, thirty-three years later, nothing could be more natural than Americans assuming that the federal government somehow has the right to ban whatever weapons it can successfully ban, even if it does so via legislative subterfuge.

If the “slippery slope” idiom ever has a meaningful application, this might be a good example of it.

In the end, it took 146 years of American history for the government to even make a sweeping effort toward a federal gun law restricting firearms among the law-abiding populace.  It took sly maneuvering to enact the first federal gun control, achieved only under the auspices of the government’s “right to tax” firearms, and an ensuing fifty years of the government purposely avoiding the notion of that government could “ban” any firearm (for fear of running afoul of the Second Amendment), before a Congressional circus in 1986 finally presumed that the government could actually “ban” automatic weapons.

Slippery slope indeed.  And this is why so many gun owners won’t budge any more.  Budging and compromising is what got us where we are today, with the expectation that Congress will only make more laws infringing on God-given rights, that they have a right and warrant to do that, and that the only recourse is to compromise and hold on to what little we can.

No more.

Fox News.

 WSJ: “Amid the increased discussion about gun control, some Trump advisers have urged the president not to throw his support behind any of the gun-control measures being discussed in Congress, including so-called red-flag legislation introduced by top Trump ally Sen. Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.), which aims at temporarily blocking dangerous people from accessing firearms. Some advisers have expressed concern that such legislation could violate the Second Amendment and alienate conservative voters. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son who often speaks with his father about his views on gun laws, has raised concerns about both red-flag legislation and about tightening background checks, according to people familiar with the matter.”

Prediction: Orange Man won’t listen to him.

Via David Codrea, Nedd Scott.

This ended the NRA as it was originally envisioned as evidenced by the massive overhaul of Article I of the NRA Bylaws. This was also the year that a young lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre was hired on by the organization. Now the firearms community would go on the offensive. Carter, now EVP, created the Institute for Legislative Action or (ILA) to lobby on Capital Hill. The NRA was focused solely at the national level with its activism at this time. Carter and Knox’s efforts bore fruit with the passing of the Firearms Ownership Protection Act (FOPA) in 1986. Although it was a major win for the organization its still had its failings. Although the NRA championed its reforms of the GCAs abuses the NRA allowed for the Hughes Amendment to be attached. (The Hughes Amendment banned future machine-gun production for civilians after May 19, 1986 and set the precident for banning firearms by type.) This, and other failures like the permanent Bush import “assault weapon” ban in 1989 can be attributed to Carter leaving the organization in 1985 while the NRA’s political focus was still in its infancy. Future leadership fell back into previous levels of minimal action and this lead up to the passing of the domestic Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in 1994. Yes, the NRA did voice opposition but in reality it exerted very little influence as the amount of money the NRA used for lobbying and election campaign contributions were a fraction of what they provide today.

Carter’s departure left a void in the organization’s leadership at a crucial time. Wayne Lapierre saw an opportunity and began his rise to power. By 1991, he had earned the position of EVP and saw a need to brand himself and rebrand the NRA. He then created the NRA Foundation, giving a third entity as a means of fund raising. An investigation of the financial dealing of the NRA will also come in a later article. By 1999, he was voice of the NRA even though it didn’t have a decisive direction. Although Lapierre called the ATF “jack-booted government thugs” after the Ruby Ridge and Wako incidents, in May of 1995 he testified before Congress supporting background checks for all firearms sales at gun shows including between private individuals. He has been economically involved with members of the established opposition including Karen F. Thomas who has ties to Hilary Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council.

It’s good to know your history.