I was watching this video and they got a bit long winded, so I bailed out.  But not before learning about a bill to require registration of so-called “assault weapons” in North Carolina.

You see, we get a routine influx of New Yorkers, Californians and others into N.C. that tilts our politics left, and this sort of thing comes up often.

But this might be a bit different given the proclivities of the current person who lives in the governor’s mansion.  I think I’ve located it here.  It does exactly that as I read it.  But if some other reader knows something else please let me know.  Also, I assume that GRNC knows more about this than I do, so I’ll try to check with them on this.

So there’s a fight right in my own yard to deal with.  It’s not just happening in Virginia.

David Codrea.

“One of the Republican sponsors, California Rep. Doug LaMalfa, said the bill was needed because Americans are too lazy.”

That the collectivists have created mass dependency where many don’t have to work in exchange for votes seems not to be open for discussion. That’s too bad because by closing that topic down through smears and intimidation, thoughtful examination of how “beneficiaries” of wealth transfers are actually victimized over generations will never happen. That’s part of the plan.

What an insulting charge.  Apparently Doug isn’t inclined to mention the fact that it’s the lazy Americans who work hard to provide that free medical care for immigrants, and that free medical care is one of the primary reasons for that immigration.

You see, immigrants aren’t the only people who like that free medical care.  The corporations like it too because they don’t have to fund it.  Corporate welfare is popular among corporatists.  And immigrants.  And democrats.  And many republicans.

Just not working Americans.  Who aren’t lazy.

And yes, immigration does indeed advance the anti-gun agenda.  Grok this.  It doesn’t matter if they come legally or illegally.  If they get to vote, they vote in favor of socialist views, including gun control, by 70%-80%.

It’s a fact, and it is not in dispute.  That’s my problem with the notion of securing the border and then ensuring that they are all legal.  It still means a vote against your God-given rights.  It’s six one way, half a dozen the other, and it all adds up to problems in the future.

The Daily Signal.

Nov. 2, Everett, Washington: A concealed-carry permit holder intervened to stop a mentally disturbed man who was endangering drivers by throwing chunks of concrete and metal pipes at cars passing by on the interstate.

Nov. 5, Genesee County, New York: A 76-year-old man used his shotgun to fend off an armed home intruder, potentially saving both his life and the life of his wife.

Nov. 7, Glen Burnie, Maryland: A man was feeding chickens in his yard when his bulldog began frantically barking, and he heard commotion from inside his home. He walked inside to find two acquaintances had broken in and, armed with a gun and a knife, were assaulting his girlfriend. The man grabbed an antique shotgun that he kept loaded “in case anything ever happens,” and fired at the attackers, injuring one and causing the other to run away.

Nov. 10, Atascocita, Texas: A group of four masked would-be robbers charged into a jewelry store and began using hammers to smash into glass cases and grab expensive items. The storeowner saw the thieves from behind the one-way mirror in his office, grabbed his gun, and fired several rounds that wounded two thieves and sent all of them running.

Nov. 14, Port Charlotte, Florida: A disabled New York City firefighter recovering from serious injuries relied on his handgun for protection against a masked woman who broke into his home and assaulted him.

Nov. 17, Burlington, North Carolina: A homeowner used his shotgun to defend himself against an ax-wielding man who tried to break into his home through a back door.

Nov. 21, Benton Harbor, Michigan: Two armed intruders broke into an apartment and ordered the occupants—including three children—to “get down.” The apartment renter heard the commotion from a separate room, grabbed his rifle, and shot at the intruders, killing one and sending the other fleeing.

Nov. 25, Miami: When a man armed with an AK-47 attempted to rob a 60-year-old concealed-carry permit holder who was in his van, his son, and girlfriend, the permit holder drew his handgun and killed the would-be robber.

Nov. 27, Tulsa, Oklahoma: A man high on the drug PCP began stabbing his friend with a knife after the friend declined to give the man a ride. The friend, in fear for his life, pulled out his firearm and shot the man

Nov. 28, McCleary, Washington: A woman shot and killed her estranged husband after he broke into her house and attacked her and a friend with a knife.

Nov. 30, Ellenwood, Georgia: A deliveryman was unloading an order of bread at a Hardee’s fast-food restaurant when he saw several employees run out of the store in a panic, screaming for help. They told him that an armed robber had entered the store and was demanding cash while threatening other employees with a gun. The deliveryman grabbed his firearm from his truck and ran into the store. A gunbattle ensued, and the robber, who was shot several times, fled the scene.

Never forget that there are those who do not want you to be able to defend home and hearth.  They are divided into three camps.

The first is comprised by the controllers, who want a monopoly on violence.  The second is comprised of the do-gooders and the scared who want the state to have a monopoly on violence.  The third is a mildly religious group, ignorant in virtually every way, who think holding hands and singing Kumbaya is a cure for the sinful nature in mankind caused from federal headship.

These three groups would rather you be dead.

Rex reviews a few things, including a less expensive but decent rifle, and also the Black Nikon FX1000 6X24 scope.

I bought one of those and haven’t had a chance to shoot with it yet.  Gander was shutting down a local store because they want to try to compete with the camper / RV scene, and this store and parking lot didn’t have room for campers and RVs.

At any rate, guns and ammo was 20% off, and everything else in the store was 50% off.  I got the scope for half price.  I’m glad to see that Rex likes it.  Maybe it will be a good performer for me.

Incrementally, first with registration.  That’s how he did it, first under the pretext of finding criminals and public safety. If you want to skip everything else, fast forward to about 29 minutes in.  But everything she says is worth hearing.

Oh, and I don’t want to hear another word from the progs on how Hitler didn’t really go after guns.  Sure he did, incrementally.  And eventually, they had nothing with which to fight him.

So the next time I see one of those idiotic commentaries about Hitler not being a gun controller, I’m going to trot out this video.

Via David Codrea, Richard Black of the Virginia State Senate.

Liberals do not understand the National Guard.  These are citizen soldiers, and there are few effective tools for enforcing mass discipline. Democrats want the Virginia National Guard to enforce anti-gun laws by turning their rifles against the people.  The Guard will not do so.

Do Democrats really expect guardsmen to arrest recalcitrant deputy sheriffs and police officers?  Do they expect guardsmen to smash down doors and confiscate citizens’ guns? Fat chance.

Remember, the Virginia National Guard is sworn to uphold the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions.  And it is a complete defense if a soldier refuses to obey an unlawful or unconstitutional order.  Democrats are delusional if they think these guys will turn against their neighbors and violate their oaths.

Michael Bloomberg thinks he has crowned Ralph Northam the new King George. But Northam lacks the practical power to employ military force against Virginia.  The Guard is sensitive to the backlash they faced after firing on students at Kent State during the Vietnam War.  They won’t go through that ordeal again.

Here’s the way it works.  As long as the guard has the affection and public support of the people, they will follow orders.  But if Governor Northam turns armed troops against our citizens, the Guard will simply dissolve.

If Virginia’s citizen soldiers are ordered to turn their rifles on the people, they will refuse to do so.  The National Guard will not report for duty in order to march on the People. They will never turn their guns on law-abiding Virginians, no matter how much the Democrats want them to.

But they did during hurricane Katrina.  My FOIA request was was ignored (concerning who issued arming orders for the Louisiana National Guard), and as best as I’ve been able to determine, the National Guard accompanied the police when confiscations were conducted, the majority of the confiscations being done by mercenary cops (probably security consultants deputized on the spot).  But being there and doing nothing to stop it is as bad as doing it yourself.

He seems confident.  I’m not so confident.

Concerning the original post on Virginia House Bill No. 67, Mack sends this.

My analysis, brief though it may be, is that concerns about this bill are misplaced.

Lee Carted prefiled HB67 before the Sanctuary Movement really began (with the ‘We will not comply’ defiance).

Carter is a Progressive and a Labor activist. He’s part of the movement to repeal our great Right-to-work law.

It’s really been the VA FOP that’s been pushing this idea that’s it’s about cops.

Carter is spending a whole lot of time on his twitter feed on this:

Highlights:

* https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1206026332980858881

* https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1205939391383953408

* https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1205768229458763776

His twitter:

* https://twitter.com/carterforva

I asked for alternate interpretations of the bill, and this is one.  I find it an odd one, and beyond that, my first inclination is not to trust a collectivist.

Reading his Twitter posts carefully, he had an original proposed bill that read differently, and I located this.  Based on other Twitter posts, he makes the claim that he amended his bill because the republicans objected that his bill leaves the police able to go on strike.

So we are to believe that he wanted republican help with this bill when it’s not likely that a republican in Virginia would have ever voted for the bill in either its original or amended form.  Furthermore, he doesn’t need republican help in a democrat-controlled legislature.

But let’s assume for a moment that he’s telling the truth.  Go back and read his amended bill in light of his claims and tell me if the bill makes any sense at all.

It doesn’t to me.  I’ve read and interpreted state laws and the federal code for 38 years, and it reads like a chop job by someone in a hurry, leaving the final section (40.1-58.1) to muddle the issue.  With that last section, the proposed bill even seems to roll back in every other state employee as forbidden from striking.  I see no reason at all for this last section to be in the regulation given the other changes he’s made.

At any rate, you now have a different interpretation.  I find it dubious.  I’ve never seen such a mixed up regulation before.  The author is obviously an idiot, or he didn’t get a lawyer’s help with it.  Or perhaps both.

Virginia House Bill No. 67 is very interesting.

HOUSE BILL NO. 67Offered January 8, 2020Prefiled December 5, 2019A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 40.1-55 through 40.1-57.1 and 40.1-58.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to strikes by certain government employees.

———-Patron– Carter———-Committee Referral Pending———-Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That §§ 40.1-55 through 40.1-57.1 and 40.1-58.1 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 40.1-55. Public safety employee striking terminates, and becomes temporarily ineligible for, public employment.

A. As used in this article, “public safety employee” means any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-500.

B. Any public safety employee of the Commonwealth, or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision thereof, or of any agency of any one of them, who, in concert with two or more other such employees, for the purpose of obstructing, impeding or suspending any activity or operation of his employing agency or any other governmental agency, strikes or willfully refuses to perform the duties of his employment shall, by such action, be deemed to have terminated his employment and shall thereafter be ineligible for employment in any position or capacity during the next twelve 12 months by the Commonwealth, or any county, city, town or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or by any department or agency of any of them.

§ 40.1-56. Department head, etc., to notify public safety employee of such termination, etc.

In any such case the head of any department of the state government, or the mayor of any city or town, or the chairman of the board of supervisors or other governing body of any county, or the head of any other such employing agency, in which such a public safety employee whose employment was terminated pursuant to § 40.1-55 was employed, shall forthwith notify such public safety employee of the fact of the termination of his employment and at the same time serve upon him in person or by registered mail a declaration of his ineligibility for reemployment as before provided. Such declaration shall state the fact upon which the asserted ineligibility is based.

§ 40.1-57. Appeal by public safety employee from declaration of ineligibility.

In the event that any such public safety employee whose employment was terminated pursuant to § 40.1-55 feels aggrieved by such declaration of ineligibility he may within ninety 90 days after the date thereof appeal to the circuit court of the county or the circuit court of the city in which he was employed by filing a petition therein for a review of the matters of law and fact involved in or pertinent to the declaration of ineligibility. A copy of the petition shall be served upon or sent by registered mail to the official signing the declaration, who may file an answer thereto within ten 10 days after receiving the same. The court or the judge thereof in vacation shall, as promptly as practicable, hear the appeal de novo and notify the employee and the signer of the declaration of ineligibility of the time and place of hearing. The court shall hear such testimony as may be adduced by the respective parties and render judgment in accordance with the law and the evidence. Such judgment shall be final.

§ 40.1-57.1. Appeal by employer for reemployment of terminated public safety employee.

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, in the event that the employer of an individual terminated under this article deems it necessary for the protection of the public welfare that such individual be reemployed within the twelve 12 months following his termination, the employer may, within ninety 90 days after the date of the declaration of ineligibility, appeal to the circuit court of the county or the circuit court of the city in which the individual was employed by filing a petition therein setting forth the reasons why the public welfare requires reemployment. A copy of the petition shall be served upon or sent by registered mail to the former public safety employee, who may file an answer therein ten 10 days after receiving the same. The court or the judge thereof in vacation shall notify the employer and former public safety employee of the time and place of the hearing on the appeal, such hearing to be de novo and to be held as promptly as possible. The court shall hear such testimony as may be adduced by the respective parties and render judgment in accordance with the law and the evidence. Such judgment shall be final.

§ 40.1-58.1. Application of article to public employers and public safety employees.

As used in this article, the words, “person,” “persons,” “employer,” “employees,” “union,” “labor union,” “association,” “organization,” and “corporation” shall include but not be limited to public employers, public employees, and any representative of public employees in this the Commonwealth. The application of this article to public employers, public employees, and their representatives shall not be construed as modifying in any way the application of § 40.1-55 to government public safety employees as defined in such section.

To begin with our analysis, let’s make it clear that this reenacts an existing law, while also amending that existing law.  And just to make it clear (it’s a shame we have to do this, but in order to placate other bloggers who might get their panties all wadded up), there are strike-throughs, italics and existing laws that need to be fisked in order to understand what they’re proposing.

If one reads the existing law in 40.1-55, it currently says the following.

Any employee of the Commonwealth, or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision thereof, or of any agency of any one of them, who, in concert with two or more other such employees, for the purpose of obstructing, impeding or suspending any activity or operation of his employing agency or any other governmental agency, strikes or willfully refuses to perform the duties of his employment shall … [ bold mine].

This is being amended and reenacted (as I’ve said before, reenacting a law is slightly different than simply amending it) to read as follows, citing from above.

A. As used in this article, “public safety employee” means any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-500.

B. Any public safety employee of the Commonwealth, or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision thereof, or of any agency of any one of them, who, in concert with two or more other such employees …

So it would appear that whereas the law once would have addressed striking state road workers, for instance, it now completely ignores them and other state employees to include only LEOs.  It now says “Any employee,” and the proposal is for it to say “Any public safety employee.”  This is defined as follows.

“Agency” means the Department of State Police, the Division of Capitol Police, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Port Authority, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, or the Department of Motor Vehicles; or the political subdivision or the campus police department of any public institution of higher education of the Commonwealth employing the law-enforcement officer.

“Law-enforcement officer” means any person, other than a Chief of Police or the Superintendent of the Department of State Police, who, in his official capacity, is (i) authorized by law to make arrests and (ii) a nonprobationary officer of one of the following agencies:

a. The Department of State Police, the Division of Capitol Police, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Port Authority, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the Department of Conservation and Recreation;

b. The police department, bureau or force of any political subdivision or the campus police department of any public institution of higher education of the Commonwealth where such department, bureau or force has three or more law-enforcement officers; or

c. Any conservation police officer as defined in § 9.1-101.

For the purposes of this chapter, “law-enforcement officer” shall not include the sheriff’s department of any city or county.

This definition includes all state police, but excludes Sheriff’s departments and their deputies, perhaps because they know there is no legal basis for such an inclusion.

In any case, they appear to be frenetically searching for ways to say to their state police, “You’ll enforce our new laws, and if you don’t, we’ll take your job and future pensions away from you.”

As always, I could be wrong about this interpretation.  Feel free to weigh in with comments, but until persuaded otherwise, they appear by this bill to be attempting to criminalize failure of state police agents to implement new firearms regulation, up to and including confiscatory orders.  You try to get another job with “willful refusal to perform the duties of employment” on your resume.

In this case I’d be all too happy to have that conversation with prospective employers in Virginia.  Then again, men with families will be much less flexible.  Moral considerations will need to outweigh practical considerations, and I don’t hold out much hope of that calculus giving a good outcome with many LEOs who are agents of the state rather than deputies in counties.

If you have a different interpretation of this bill, weigh in with comments.

UPDATE: More On House Bill No. 67.

This guy almost didn’t make it.  It’s useful he had the presence of mind to grab a few minutes of film to catalog his misery.  Here is a more detailed account of his experience.

So I have to say that I’m no expert, but neither is Bear Grylls.  Bear Grylls is a fake.  Following his advice nearly got this guy killed.

If I would have been in that predicament it’s obvious I wouldn’t have had fire starter, bedding, or shelter for the night any more than he had.  But I would have been smart enough to stop way before he did.

He was still moving on the first day at 4:45 pm.  Anyone with experience in the bush knows, in the winter it gets dark early.  In the mountains in the winter it gets dark even earlier, and in the mountains in the winter among the trees it gets dark even earlier.  If he had stopped at 3:00 pm to make a good shelter for the night, he might not have gotten his feet wet and might still have the leg that was amputated.

He needed a shelter of evergreen bows, leafs, pine needles and whatever else he could find, or in other words, a debris hut, with separation between him and the ground, as small as he could make it and still have room for himself.  Heating it would have been easier with his body heat than a large shelter, or one made of ice which would remove body heat by radiation.  He needed to go to bed earlier, and he needed to be dry.

He needed to get up the next morning and backtrack his exact footsteps to the place he began this misadventure.  Instead, he lost energy, slept with ice for insulation, and continued to go the wrong way.  He lost his leg for it, and could have died.