NY Post.

Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro has a new national goal: He’s going to expand his massive private army to 4 million gunmen by the end of 2020. Another triumph of socialism!

And never mind that the policies of Maduro and his late predecessor, Hugo Chávez, have brought the nation to ruin, with all but the rulers and their clients facing slow starvation and “health care” without any medicine. Well over a tenth the population has fled, with more leaving all the time.

Sadly, the opposition — including Juan Guaidó, the legitimate president recognized by most of the world’s democratic countries — is powerless, not least because the regime confiscated all private firearms back in 2012.

Exempted from the ban: the regime’s “Bolivarian Militias” — modern-day brownshirts who have done much of the work of crushing protests for years now.

The government says their ranks now number 3.3 million, so Maduro’s 4 million goal seems all too reachable.

All around the world, earnest fans of socialism insist it has never failed, as critics claim, since “true socialism has never really been tried.” Maduro is showing that the sure way to make it “succeed” is for the self-proclaimed socialists to have all the guns.

All controllers want all of the guns, all of the time, and in every situation.  It’s what they do, it’s how they survive.

What an odd thing to see this in the New York Post, in which I’ve seen anti-2A commentary before.

Via Virginia reporter Mack, this bit of interesting analysis.

This is all a pregnant bit of prose and requires some unpacking.  Richard Schragger, a law professor at the University of Virginia, has misled the reporter and the readers.  It’s all quite a bit more complicated than that, and he knows it.

His analysis is similar in import to the one today by a member of the Virginia legislature, David Toscano, written at Slate.

Conservatives have railed for years against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, criticizing localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration policies they deem heartless and ineffective. In the past year, however, some conservative lawmakers have taken a page from the progressive playbook, employing sanctuary imagery in opposition to gun safety legislation they deem to be an unconstitutional restriction of their rights under the Second Amendment.

The two approaches are classic cases of false equivalency. Jurisdictions that proclaim themselves sanctuaries for immigrants do not seek to violate the law; they simply refuse to engage local law enforcement in supporting actions that are federal responsibilities. They do not block the law, but simply insist that it should be enforced by those who have the responsibility to do so. For some proponents of so-called gun sanctuaries, however, the goal is to prevent enforcement of state law that the jurisdiction (not a court) deems unconstitutional.

Oh.  Is that the way it works?  Well then.  I guess Reuters is wrong to point out that “Sanctuary cities are those where local officials decline to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.”  Yes, in fact, that’s exactly what an illegal alien sanctuary city is.

Professor Schragger, a little digging shows, absolutely hates preemption (this link also works).  You see, he wants cities and towns to be able to levy taxes, impose regulations and do all sorts of things not granted authority by the state.  He calls preemption an “an attack on American cities.”  As long as the tilt is towards more and more regulation, he’s okay with it all.  If cities seek to ignore state law, he’s not.

So by attempting to pose a quick defeater argument for the equivalence between illegal alien sanctuary cities and 2A cities and counties, both authors have introduced more problems to deal with.  The most significant illegal alien sanctuary city case Trump has won merely allowed the FedGov to “give preferential treatment in awarding community policing grants to cities that cooperate with immigration authorities.”  That’s it.  That’s the sum total of the judicial victory.

So what Toscano and Schragger have done is pose a defeater, and hope that you didn’t dig to find the details enough to see that their argument fails, and does so miserably.  Their attempt at defeating the “false equivalence” ends up showing the similarity, and yet they still dislike state attempts at preemption on illegal alien sanctuaries, and like it for 2A sanctuaries.

They’ve done nothing more than restate their own axiomatic irreducibles, or presuppositions.  They both bias towards so-called progressive views, while denying the right of others to invoke those same tools for their own uses.  But the law is the result of these philosophic pre-commitments, not the source of them.  Philosophic pre-commitments come first, not last.  The law comes last, not first.

We do the very same thing, recognizing that our own pre-commitments are not theirs.  The fundamental divide has nothing to do with the law, per se.  It has to do with the polarization of America, which not just continues unabated, but is accelerating.  We dislike preemption when it comes to preservation of our 2A rights, and like it when it comes to illegal alien sanctuary cities.  These views have to do with preservation of certain God-given rights, tendency in the Latino voters to undermine those rights, and other issues too involved to fisk at the moment.

Again, philosophic pre-commitments govern the outcome of the debate, not the law, the law being the result of the debate.  That’s why judge-shopping is so in vogue with the progressives.  Philosophic pre-commitments can change your view of everything, not least of which is how mankind should be governed.

But that doesn’t end the issues with the analysis above.  Professor Schragger has oversimplified the issue when he discusses failing to remove weapons from a citizen and that weapon being used in a crime, leading to culpability and liability by the LEO.  Does the professor think that LEOs are going to log in weapons owners, along with the respective serial numbers of all firearms, make permanent records searchable by NICS or some other means (i.e., a registry), and make them available for future use by law enforcement?  Form 4473 isn’t a registration, and firearms can be sold to others in person-to-person transfers.  Having your information on Form 4473 proves nothing concerning present ownership of a firearm.  What tool does professor Schragger think will be used for this draconian scheme of culpability?  He posits all sorts of wet dreams for controllers, but has no idea how this all functions in real time and space.

Piling problem on top of problem, professor Schragger knows, or at least he should know, that LEOs bear no responsibility whatsoever for the protection of the public.  We’ve seen that from the doctrines established in Castle Rock versus Gonzalez and Warren versus the District of Columbia.  No LEO will stand trial for failing to confiscate a weapon because of it being used later in a crime.  That’s a preposterous notion, a sophomoric pretension suitable only for scare-tactics.

As to the extent of efficacy of these ordinances and resolutions, that’s an open question and both of the authors know it.  Sheriffs may lose their nerve, individuals may not find support among neighbors, and militias may fall apart.  My bet is against this.

Sheriffs may arrest state agents for enforcing new gun control laws.  Sheriffs can be thrown out of office and new ones elected.  Militias may end up forming road blocks and preventing state agents from enforcing any new laws.  Firearms will be purchased across state lines and from person-to-person.  Existing firearms will not go away, and most assuredly will never be registered in a state registry.  The compliance rate for these kinds of laws in New York and Connecticut was virtually non-existent, and Virginia isn’t Connecticut.

What I’m certain of, however, is that state agents and politicians of Virginia have absolutely no idea what’s coming, and presume the wrong things about the people of Virginia.  Pollyanna analyses like that from professor Schragger are misleading, and a much better gauge of what this will look like is knowing the people of Virginia.

In summary, 2A ordinances and resolutions have exactly as much teeth as the people of Virginia and their willingness to oppose new laws – not one ounce more, and not one ounce less, the professor and the politician notwithstanding.

Via David Codrea, the city of Chesapeake.

One quick comment about this article.  “One Chesapeake high school student said residents did not need to use AR-15 assault rifles to protect themselves, drawing some boos from the crowd.”

I told you before, and will reiterate here.  This isn’t about bolt action hunting rifles or the danger deer and feral hogs pose.  This meeting included robust defense of AR-15s and similar firearms.  Virginians won’t give them up, and they won’t register them.  I know the people of Virginia.

More pictures from Chesapeake.

Prince William County.

Via Ammoland, Bedford County.

As readers in Virginia gain intel, send our way as you see fit.

Looks like they do.

I like the Langdon 1301 tactical shotgun, and had never seen one before.  Is this a competitor for the Benelli M4 and Mossberg 930?

Via WiscoDave, sure they did.

Virginia Democratic leaders abandoned their gun confiscation proposal Monday following a grassroots outpouring of opposition to gun control across the state.

Governor Ralph Northam (D.) and incoming Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw (D.) said they will no longer pursue their marquee plan to ban the possession of “assault weapons.” Instead, they will include a provision to allow Virginians to keep the firearms they already own. The reversal comes before the newly elected Democratic majority has even been sworn in, after a majority of the state’s counties declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

“In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky told the Virginia Mercury.

It’s being presented in an interesting way, with an interesting lede, yes?  Dems have caved, while demanding registration.

David Codrea remarks, “So not being able to buy new ones and having to register old ones is being presented as a “win”?”

I would remind readers what the controllers really want.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it:

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn’t. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted.

The boys in Virginia know all of this.  They will NOT register their firearms with anyone, FedGov or state.  Noncompliance will be near 100%.  They are going to have to make a difficult decision when the first person, otherwise peaceable, is on trial for owning an AR-15.

They can stand idly by and watch, thankful it isn’t them, or they can set up road blocks and surround his home with patriots to prevent the enforcement of the law, raising and aiming rifles if needed.

Time will tell which path they choose.

Spread this meme far and wide, via email distribution, Gab, Twitter, or other social media.  H/T readers Fred  and JFP.

By way of explanation, Ralph “all your guns are belong to us” Northam has demanded all your guns, Virginians, and volunteered “comfort care” for live aborted babies (comfort care is normally reserved for application in end-of-life situations where the goal is to reduce pain and agony).

Documents uncovered from earlier this year show that Virginia governor Ralph Northam obtained talking points on abortion policy from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.

The documents were released today by Judicial Watch, which filed requests in February under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, seeking records of communication between Northam’s staff related to abortion or the abortion bill sponsored earlier this year by state representative Kathy Tran. The group also requested records of communication between Northam’s staff and Planned Parenthood or the abortion-advocacy PAC EMILY’s List.

Judicial Watch filed the requests immediately after Northam defended Tran’s abortion bill, which would’ve amended Virginia law to allow abortion later in pregnancy and, as Tran admitted in a hearing, even during delivery. In a late-January radio interview, Northam attempted to justify his support for the bill, saying: “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated, if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

You say all of that to the Almighty during the judgment and see what He thinks of your comfort care, Ralphie.

You recall the incident where police in Florida killed two innocent people in a shootout around other cars, innocent people and bystanders?

Well, as it turns out, it has been determined that at least 18 police officers discharged firearms during this brief incident, and maybe more.

At least 18 officers.

Some guys robs a store.  They take a UPS driver hostage.  The cops give chase.  The cops approach the robbers using innocent civilian cars as cover (i.e., they use civilians as human shields).  They turn the truck into Swiss cheese.  They kill the hostage.  They kill an innocent civilian near the scene.  That about covers it.

You’re never in more danger than when the police are around.

News from the People’s Republic of California.

In the latest example of police shooting first and asking questions later, a California cop opened fire on a man pointing an umbrella at him.

The Santa Rosa cop fired three times with his AR-15 but missed. The man took off running but the cop chased after him and tackled him.

That may have been the moment the cop realized the man had been wielding an umbrella all along.

Nevertheless, Joshua Oceguera was charged with making criminal threats, assault and brandishing a weapon, according to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

A California law firm explained on its website that in the eyes of the state, “a deadly weapon can be anything from a firearm to a baseball bat or even a bottle.”

In order to convict you of brandishing a deadly weapon, the prosecution must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.    You possessed a deadly weapon as defined by law, and

2.    You drew or exhibited the weapon in a rude, angry or threatening manner in front of someone else, or

3.    You actually used the weapon unlawfully in a quarrel or fight with someone, and

4.    You were not acting in self defense or in the defense of someone else

The incident took place Saturday afternoon and was captured on the officer’s body camera which will eventually be released under a new California transparency law, according to Fox 10.

When officers arrived, they said the suspect was “non-compliant and at one point brandished what the officer believed was a rifle.”

“We later learned that the item the suspect had brandished was a black umbrella,” Marincik said.

Police did not provide body camera video or a photo of the umbrella. “Under AB 748 and SB 1421, any related body worn camera and investigative reports that fall under those categories will be released at a future date,” Marincik said in an email, referring to two laws that mandate the eventual release of such information.

The officer fired three rounds from his department-issued rifle, Marincik said. The rounds did not strike the suspect and no one was “seriously injured,” though Marincik did not explain in detail what that meant.

The suspect then ran away from the officer, who chased him and tackled him to the ground a short distance later. The officer took the suspect into custody.

Marincik said the officer, who has less then two years on the force, is on paid administrative leave. The officer will be interviewed this week and the department will likely release his name “in the next day or two.”

Hmm … so let’s see here.  Assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, assault with the intent of doing bodily harm, disturbing the peace, and in general being a poor shot.

But the hell of this is that the cop will be able to do that and get away with it.  He will literally be able to mistake an umbrella for a rifle, shoot at an innocent man with his patrol rifle, and go back to work to do it all again one day.  So I predict.

And like all good cowards, the chief of police has no posted email address.  You remember what I said about public officials who have no contact information, right?

You’re never in more danger than when the police are around.  Run, hide and fight.  It isn’t just for foreign terrorist threats.  It’s for domestic terrorist threats as well.

Dean Weingarten.

The liberty-loving Georgian lady did not let that comment go unanswered. She proceeded to school the older woman on the fact that they were talking arms to bring a tyrannical government down, so if the other lady wanted to talk intent of the founding fathers then today American citizens would be free have all the armaments that they could afford to have.

Arms that are equal to what America’s soldiers have access to.

She continued by stating that “gun violence” is a myth. If politicians wanted to truly take on the problem of murder they would have to find a way to deal with the corrupt hearts of mankind.

Since they do not do this, the best answer is for good guys to have guns and be ready and efficient with them to kill the bad guys.

She’s got her theology right, her politics right, and her understanding of the second amendment right.  Would that Americans were such clear thinkers.

When my former Marine was in the work-up towards his Iraq deployment, and even after that, he was shooting 1000 rounds a day for more than a year.  The author mentions 200-300 rounds per day.  I have neither the time nor money for that since I don’t make a penny off of this blog.  But if you’re able to put that many rounds down range, lead poisoning is a really big deal.