David Codrea.

Despite things not working out the way the governor ginned up all that fear for, reality hardly stopped his political allies from doing what they do best, springboarding off his lie and adding whoppers of their own.

“Annual gun lobby day protest in Richmond drew large numbers of white nationalists, militias, and racist conspiracy theorists this year,” the ever-odious Rep. Don Beyer tweeted. “Neo-Nazis tried to use this rally to launch violent attacks. Trump’s symbolism and memories of Charlottesville are vivid in many minds today.”

Taking their cue on what to amplify, NBC was representative of the rest of the DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media), breathlessly planting seeds like:

“On far-right corners of the internet, some have said the rally will accelerate a ‘race war.’”

No one I know said something like that.  Being a bit dramatic, are we?  Open carry is legal in Virginia (it won’t be if the communists get their way), so no law was broken, no fights broke out, no violence ensued, and not a single negligent discharge occurred out of 30,000 firearms (it would be good for the police to take a page from their book).

Don’t you know the progs just hate that?

NC Renegade.

Allies are crucial in this war, but the right has no understanding of how to make an alliance, with whom to make it, or what has to be done to sustain it.  The right cannot even ally itself with itself.

Yea.  As I’ve been trying to say over these past few weeks.  If you don’t get past this “us four and no more” philosophy,” if you don’t learn not to “major on the minors,” you’ll get squashed like a bug in the road.

Honestly, with the disagreeable nature of gun owners lately, I wondering whether they will be pounding in anger on the keyboard until they’re picked up to ride the rail cars, and inside the rail car, if they’ll be bickering over who sits where.

There is no reason for the communists to worry.  They have no unified opposition.

News from New Mexico.

“Citizens have a right to bear arms and we cannot circumvent that right when they have not even committed a crime or even been accused of committing one,” added the Sheriff’s Association.  “We sheriffs have sworn to uphold those and other God-given rights for our citizens at all costs.”

[ … ]

In the statement from the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association, signed by the chairman, Sheriff Tony Mace, it says, “The founding fathers of our republic were patriots with firearms in their hands fighting against tyranny for the freedom and liberty of which they were denied by England. Upon their victory, they formed a new and innovative government to protect their newfound freedom to include the drafting of a Constitution with accompanying Amendments to protect their rights.”

“This created the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is an Amendment that has often been challenged and interpreted by the highest court of the land and to this day stands as an individual right for each law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms,” reads the statement.

“Law-abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to freely choose to arm themselves as collectors, to hunt, to compete in shooting sports and/or recreational shooting, as well as personal and home defense,” says Sheriff Mace. “Most importantly, and should it become necessary, American citizens have the right to be armed to stand and protect the republic against a corrupt and usurping government once again as the original framers of the Constitution intended.”

He continued, “29 out of the 33 New Mexico sheriffs agree that the rush to react to violent crime and atrocities perpetrated by disturbed and/or violent offenders by proposing controls on law-abiding citizens’ guns is ill conceived and is truly a distraction to the real problems proliferating violence in our counties and in our state.”

“These sheriffs encourage the full and complete enforcement of existing gun regulations and oppose any executive order or rule that further restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens to own, possess, keep and use firearms for lawful purposes,” reads the statement.

We might note that this is a great statement except for the last part about existing gun regulations.  A bit of discussion is in order about our understanding of compromise.

Not one more inch, not one more compromise, not one more infringement.  Yes, and all of that, but would you seriously refuse to become allies with these Sheriffs?

Compromise, the way I see it, is giving something up that isn’t justified and isn’t a guaranteed right by God.  In this case, enforcement of existing laws isn’t a compromise.  Those laws are already on the books.  Undoing them is way down the road, because the gun rights community is in full retreat right now.

The “us four and no more” philosophy will get gun owners killed.  This community is going to have to learn incrementalism.  We’ve got to learn to find proper allies.  The statists have made good use of that tactic, and we are where we are because rather than ally with those closest to our views for a period of time, we sit and squander the opportunity to press forward in the war.  Politics is war.

Those Sheriffs aren’t asking you to give anything up that hasn’t already been codified in state law.  If they are serious – and that’s a big if – they are potentially putting their jobs and pensions on the line to be “constitutional Sheriffs.”

Would you refuse an ally like this and let Eric Holder take them on and destroy their careers, cast them out of office, and turn your neighborhoods against you?  Eric Holder understands incrementalism.  If you’re waiting on the perfect one, you may as well board the train now and save the state the money to hunt you down.

Again, there is nothing in that statement above that would cause a patriot to wince except the enforcement of existing laws.  That can be handled later, maybe, but certainly not if your Sheriff is Art Acevedo, or Paul Penzone (41mag will have no audience with him).  When is “a huge step in the right direction” worth your support?

And if nothing is, what’s your plan?  And don’t give me a list of all the tactical crap you’re going to do if you won’t even use your real name to comment.

If I lived in New Mexico, I’d be telling these Sheriffs to press on.  They’re doing God’s work.

Are you committed to counter their moves?

CA at WRSA sends these links.

WRSA Link #1

Democratic Redistricting

Engineering a Permanent Democratic Majority

Eric Holder’s Involvement

They’re Coming After North Carolina

They’re Coming After Georgia

Virginia was only the beginning.  So here’s the question.  Are patriots going to fondle their rifles, hide behind nom de guerres, and claim they’re going to do something about this, while they’re really preparing to be picked off one by one, or are they going to involve themselves in the local, county and state political process?

Against the many, loud, repeated claims that politics yields nothing of any benefit, I once again note that politics is war.  See it that way or be run over.  Apparently, the progs know it as war, and they think it’s worth their energy and effort.  Do you?

The only saving grace in all of this is that the NRA Wine Club is rocking!

At Outdoor Life.

And the only one under $1000 is the Henry lever action rifle.  The Ruger Hawkeye Long Range Hunter is close, coming in at an MSRP of $1279.

Accurate is great (the expectation now is sub-MOA), but light weight with composite build is better (when combined with accuracy), but costs big.

Haywood County, North Carolina, is considering a second amendment sanctuary resolution.  Collectivists are everywhere, even in the mountains of North Carolina.

Sometimes when the topic of gun rights comes up, people pick a side and put blinders on. In general there seems to be no room for compromise, let alone any listening with an open mind to what someone from the opposite side has to say.

But like in so many other ways, Haywood County is a special place where people find ways to overcome obstacles and work through issues.

That was on full display Tuesday evening when the county commissioner meeting room in the Historic Courthouse was jam-packed with people — most of whom were speaking up during a public comment session to ask that Haywood become a gun sanctuary county.

This is when a state or local government body passes a resolution indicating their support for the Second Amendment. Some resolutions resolve to not enforce gun control measures county leaders perceive as violating Second Amendment rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

There were about three dozen speakers, with the vast majority urging the commissioners to become a gun sanctuary county.

But there was a moment in the meeting when views seemed to soften just a bit. All in the room gave Haywood native Natalie Henry Howell a standing ovation when she asked for consideration of two gun control measures that may have saved the life of her son, Riley, who died during a school shooting at UNC-Charlotte after tackling the shooter and saving who knows how many other lives.

Riley was shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun, Howell told the crowd.

“I just want us to give some careful thought on whether or not that’s something we want out there,” Howell said. “The other thing I’d like to give careful thought to is tighter background checks, because I’m not real sure I understand why someone who says they want responsible gun ownership wouldn’t be for background checks that are thorough.”

The Howell family has long made it clear that Riley enjoyed target practice and that their stance is not to undermine the Second Amendment.

“We are not saying no to guns. There are just some things we can and need to do better,” Howell said in an earlier interview. “I hear people say ‘This won’t help’ or ‘That won’t help’ and I say ‘Well, OK, no single measure will end this gun violence epidemic, but it’s a start and will save lives.’”

Ironically, many of the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions adopted by state or local government bodies advocate not enforcing laws viewed as limiting gun rights in any way. The wording raises questions.

Many speaking at the commissioner meeting said the resolution simply sends a message of support for Second Amendment rights, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that — or with expanding that message to include all the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But as always, the devil is in the details.

[ … ]

Would a sanctuary resolution raise questions about laws passed by duly elected state and federal governing bodies, but not adjudicated through the court? What about laws upheld by our court system such as prohibiting felons from owning a gun or background checks?

Messages can be sent in multiple ways. There are risks to adopting a resolution worded in a way that could put locally elected officials in a position of picking and choosing what laws to enforce, which should be downright scary to those who believe in our form of government here in the United States. Additionally, withholding county resources from enforcing certain laws, as some of the gun sanctuary resolutions suggest, could set the county up for a lawsuit.

The commissioners all voiced support for gun rights, and all of them indicated they are gun users. They also indicated they are willing to adopt something, but want to be careful of how it is worded.

Well now, this is rich in detail, yes?  I think we all needed to know these things and I see her commentary as profoundly helpful.

The Howell family’s argument is an appeal to emotion, an attempt to garner sympathy from their tragic loss, and (the way I look at it) an inappropriate appeal to the life of their son.  Riley was “shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun.”

So we might point out that Riley could have been killed with a single round, and thus there is no difference between a single shot rifle and any other.  Furthermore, it would have been better for Riley, despite his heroic actions, to have been armed.  Rather than lobbying for limitations on magazine capacity, she should have been arguing against “gun-free” zones, which are never really free of guns, just free of gun-carrying law abiding citizens.

But more to the point, this isn’t in the least related to the resolution before the County Commissioners.  It’s a misdirect.  The task before them is to adopt the second amendment sanctuary resolution or reject it.  To that issue, I’d like to make some observations (and send this to each member of the county board of commissioners).  The board is made up of Kevin Ensley, Brandon C. Rogers, J. W. “Kirk” Kirkpatrick III, Tommy Long, and Mark Pless.

This is no small matter you’re taking up.  If you’re scared of lawsuits and things not being adjudicated through the courts, you need a gut check and review of your world and life view rather than a vote on this resolution.    Passing this resolution with the thought that you’re making some sort of “symbolic statement” is not just dishonest, but dangerous.

These sorts of resolutions have been passed before in various places, only to later learn that the county wasn’t serious about them and had no intention of using assets to enforce them, with the result that county residents who believed them were taken before federal courts for violating laws governing things like ownership of suppressors without having submitted approval to the ATF.

It is the worst sort of thing you can do, to set up your constituency for failure because they believed you, when you were actually making “statements,” or worse, telling lies for the sake of convenience or reelection.  You see, this resolution is before you because your constituency knows that the second amendment is under attack.  Adjudication through the courts has helped to get us where we are today rather than stopping or slowing it.

When the second amendment resolution passed in Lincoln County, the chairman of the board of commissioners said “If the state or even the federal government comes down with additional regulations, it’s gonna say that Lincoln County is not gonna come forth with that and it’s gonna be hard to take guns in Lincoln County.”  And said this: “If it comes to pass that they want to infringe upon the people’s rights to carry guns, it’s going to be a bad day for somebody.”

It sounds to me like she’s serious and knows what she believes.  Sheriff Mack, founder and president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, had this to say about things.

“A lot of those sanctuary cities and counties across the country don’t go far enough,” said Mack. “What do you do if they still come in and try to take law abiding citizens’ guns? [The sheriffs] need to actually intervene and interpose and not let it happen.”

You see, people like this are committed.  They know that the board of county commissioners must be on the side of liberty.  They know that the Sheriff and his deputies must be in agreement, and they know that the county attorney must also be on board.  Otherwise, it’s like the opinion pages of the Greensboro News & Record, saying, “To a large degree, these resolutions are harmless. They break no laws, nor do they change any laws. If they provide some degree of comfort to local residents, more power to them. Gun violence is regularly in the news these days, and we could all use a little comforting.”

If you see yourself as passing “harmless resolutions that comfort people,” then you should stand down now.  But if you see yourselves as an essential cog in the liberty machinery of America, and are seriously committed to the fight, I commend this resolution to you.

Either way, as long as you’re being honest about things, my readers in your county will know where you stand.

UPDATE: Gaston County, N.C., is also considering a 2A resolution soon.  I just penned a letter to them, encouraging their acceptance of the resolution, but with the same stipulations of seriousness.

UPDATE #2:  Mr. Tracy Philbeck, Chairman of the Gaston County Board of Commissioners, sends this article in response.

Another perspective on Richmond from a collectivist.

The guy in Richmond with the “fifty-cal” assault rifle, along with many other dress-up warriors in battle fatigues, was at the Virginia State Capitol building to challenge Governor Ralph Northam and the new Democratically-controlled General Assembly’s proposal to enact a universal background check system and a ban on assault weapons and bump stocks.

[ … ]

Reports of the protest said that, unlike in previous years at the VCDL’s Lobby Day, many of the usual counter-protestors sat this one out. The heavily armed activists succeeded in scaring off their very threatening challengers: mothers who are terrified of gun violence in schools, and the survivors of shootings. “Ooh rah,” as the Marines say. What a tough bunch—intimidating a bunch of unarmed parents and children certainly requires a full complement of assault rifles of both the handheld and siderail-affixed variety.

Perhaps the saddest part of the gun-rights demonstration was how unnecessary it really was. The most extreme advocates among them would have us believe that any restrictions on gun sales or ownership will bring us one step closer to the government seizing every gun. But the fifty-cal is a far cry from a revolver in the drawer of your bedside table. It’s difficult to imagine how it would prove useful in quickly thwarting a home invasion unless one keeps it mounted and loaded on the kitchen counter. Imagine an America where you pull up to a stop light and the mini-van next to you isn’t sporting the latest Swedish luggage rack but two semi-automatic machine guns with laser scopes and night vision.

[ … ]

My fear is that this is exactly the kind of America the guy with the fifty-cal wants. That’s why he is the perfect posterchild for the very reasonable gun-safety laws making their way through Virginia’s legislature. There is not one Democrat in the Virginia General Assembly, not one member of Moms Demand Action, maybe not even one victim of gun violence who could make the case better. He is one of the most potent reminders that average citizen should not have military assault rifles.

Still, a tiny minority, backed by the powerful lobbying force of the National Rifle Association, has effectively prevented a nationwide restriction on civilian ownership of weapons of war. That needs to change. Otherwise, all of us will continue living in danger of seeing a fifty-cal up close and in action even if we’re nowhere near a battleship.

A thorough fisking of this commentary just wouldn’t be possible without a lot of time.  But a few things can be pointed out.

As with most commentators, she knows nothing about guns.  She says, “semi-automatic machine guns,” of which there is no such thing.  There is also no such thing as a .50 caliber assault rifle.  Assault rifles, by their very definition, use intermediate cartridges, not large bore cartridges.

But getting to the issue of world and life view, her true value judgments soon become clear.  “He is one of the most potent reminders that average citizen (sic) should not have military assault rifles.”  And she mentions the revolver in the drawer.

But what if the head of the household believes that a revolver in the drawer isn’t the best firearm for defending his home?  What if he has a multi-person home invasion to deal with?  According to Ms. Weeldreyer, you’re limited by whatever she thinks.

And what she thinks is that you, as the average citizen, have no right to any kind of weapon you want.  You’re limited by the state, because, according to her, the state has a monopoly on violence.  But you see Ms. Weeldreyer, states with monopolies on violence behaved like Uganda (under Idi Amin), Turkey (in the Armenian genocide), Cambodia (under Pol Pot), the Soviet Union (under the Bolskeviks), and Germany (under Adolf Hitler).  The history of gun control is as a pretext to awful things, and if Ms. Weeldreyer wants peace on earth, as much as their can be with the wickedness of mankind, she should do some study of the mass shootings that took place in the twentieth century and see just who did it.

But she doesn’t care about any of that.  The mere sight of guns anywhere is to her a threat, and thus, with her axiom being that only the government can be threats to people, you shouldn’t be allowed access.  Finally, her husband is a former military man.  So he took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

He could start by teaching his wife and being a real leader in the home.

House Bill 4168.

(4) Whenever the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the United States Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force;

(5) The several states of the United States of America respect the proper role of the federal government, but reject the proposition that such respect requires unlimited submission. If the government, created by a compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the United States Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the United States Constitution, would necessarily become the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether infractions of the compact have occurred, as well as to determine the mode and measure of redress. Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made under the powers granted in the United States Constitution, such supremacy does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of West Virginia. All such statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining of militia forces actively employed in the service of the armed forces of the United States;

(6) The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states”, but “regulating commerce” does not include the power to limit citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, neighbors, persons, or property, or to dictate as to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding West Virginians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

Of course, this is good and I applaud the representatives who sponsored this bill.  I encourage all West Virginia representatives and senators to vote in favor of this bill and make it become law.

However, just because the state is taking this stand doesn’t mean involvement in local and county politics can stand down.

The state law can be changed later, or it might not be honored.  Honoring this law would mean use of state agents and militia to interdict and stop agents of the federal government from enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws.  In fact, there are a number already on the books that are unconstitutional (namely, all of them).

So the question for the House and Senate is just this: How seriously are you going to take this, or do you see it as some sort of toothless resolution or statement of support to “send a message?”

If you see this as “sending a message,” then choose another way to do it until voters can cast you out of office and put patriots back it.

For the voters of West Virginia, you have some fisking to do, on both the state and county level.