Say it ain’t so.

“Last week, the Biden administration promised gun control groups that it will soon roll out a massive push for limits on firearm purchases and other measures. President Biden reiterated that promise on Sunday. And the television networks aren’t waiting to lay the groundwork for this effort. CBS is in a full-court press for gun control on its evening entertainment television shows. The bad guys are always white supremacists who use machine guns — supposedly AR-15s — to commit mass public shootings. Criminals in Mexico supposedly get machine guns from the United States. A father’s desire to protect his family only leads to tragedy when his daughter gets into the gun safe and uses the weapon in a mass public shooting. And guns in the home pose a danger for children. Gun registration is necessary for solving crime. NBC isn’t to be left out, showing a woman who tried but failed to use a gun to protect herself. Instead, her gun was taken from her and used to kill a police officer. The lesson is that owning a gun will only bring you grief. And that’s just in the first six weeks of the year. Every show gives an inaccurate impression about firearms, thereby helping in this push for gun restrictions. It’s as though these shows were written by Michael Bloomberg’s gun control organizations. Indeed, the networks are working with these groups.”

Oh I don’t think it’s that hard to get machine guns or any other kind of weapon from the U.S. to Mexico.  Just ask the U.S. DoJ and the ATF.  They’re experts at it.  And then just to clean up the mess they’ll prosecute and imprison the very FFL they forced to do the transfers.  Wipe, wipe, scrub, scrub, clean as a whistle.  No muss, no fuss.

As for TV, does anyone really watch that any more?  I don’t watch television.  Oh, I have to admit that I might turn on “For a Few Dollars More” just to watch the masterful job Lee Van Cleef does with the character Colonel Douglas Mortimer.  It’s just awesome viewing late at night on a Friday after a week of work.

Somehow, I don’t think Hollywood is happy with me feasting my eyes on righteous gun play for two hours and then ignoring all of their other crap.

And somehow I sense that they are desperate.  They want to be relevant in a market that is making them increasingly irrelevant.  They feel left out.  Pity.

In the land to the North (via WiscoDave).

A pastor in Edmonton, Canada was just tried, sentenced, and jailed for refusing to follow government pandemic mandates.

Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church was charged and arrested after last Sunday’s service with repeatedly failing to follow mask and 15% capacity mandates.

His crime? Hosting 300 maskless people who voluntarily gathered inside to worship God, taking a willing 99% chance of surviving a virus to obey their Savior’s command to gather and build the church.

Since being put in prison, he has been sitting “in isolation in a cell block.” Just a few days later, the government has already tried him and handed down a sentence to prison for his high crimes and treason against sCiEnCe.

His wife Erin said the government “went for the jugular” and “tried him in secret.” She also said he must promise to “not pastor anymore” in order to be released, but that he is unwilling to do so.

The survival rate is much higher than that.  As for their little “secret” trial, how utterly absurd.

“Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.”  Psalm 44:21

Someone is piling agony on top of agony for themselves in judgment one day soon.  God will not be mocked.  Nothing is secret – He knows everything and judges with a righteous judgment.  There won’t even be a response from the accused on that awful day of judgment.  The tyrant’s lips will be sealed, and they will be prostrate before the ruler of the universe, the real judge, not a pretend judge.

Of course, this may happen in time too.  As always, ignore commands from the state when they conflict with the commands of God.  Maybe a righteous prison break would be in order.  Followed by an armed defense of the pastor’s home and family.

This is horrific.

Brooklyn: Flatbush Avenue & Parkside Avenue, person #CaughtOnCamera beating up a biker with a bat until he falls to the ground unconscious. pic.twitter.com/3PXr06gCNc

— NYC Scoop (@NY_Scoop) February 18, 2021

The victim is still not conscious and is in critical condition.  But the problem is easy to solve.  Shoot him.

Put a slug into the thug’s belly to stop him, and then put another into his head to make sure he doesn’t get back up and start again.  The upshot is that he would never be able to harm someone like this again.

Move from New York where you cannot defend yourself.  Get out of there.  It is the land of communists.

And remember Herschel’s Dictum.  Always.

I have a family member who lives in Austin, Texas.  This is a video he sent me (he didn’t take it, but is near where this video was taken).  This video is a couple of days old.  This line was about a mile long as guessed by the videographer.  There are no more lines like that because the grocery stores are out of food.

The trucks haven’t been able to run, so the shelves are bare.  Worse, the water system is torn apart by freezing temperatures, and water is off to most of the city.  There is no potable water, there is no more food.  There is now a run on gasoline, and the stations are quickly running out their tanks.

Power is off throughout vast portions of Austin and in fact throughout much of Texas.  It would be easy to write an essay about the power situation, but denials that the rush to natural gas and windmills is at least partially responsible are wrong.

The windmills are frozen, and the CTs (Combustion Turbines) sit above ground.  They are frozen solid and cannot operate.  Solar panels are covered with snow and ice, and besides, wouldn’t be capable of supplying the industrial base with enough power even if they could operate.

While there is a lot of research in next generation nuclear (like Molten Salt reactors) occurring at ORNL and ANL, and that’s nice, it wouldn’t have been necessary to wait on that.  PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) and BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) technology is mature and safe.

The problem is that no CEO wants to invest money in nuclear power because the tax incentives are so significant for solar panels.  But the only source of cheap, clean, mature energy that can supply an industrial base with power is nuclear.  Unless, of course, they intend to move the industrial base to China (which is in fact investing huge sums of money in nuclear) and then beg for scraps that fall from the master’s table.

My family member is safe and sound with copious supplies for everything, and I told him that the only people who would have been prepared for something like this is preppers.  He responded that people do in fact listen to the government and that had a warning come out in time to concern yourself with potable water, run water into bathtubs, get freeze dried foods, visit the grocery stores, get batteries, get medical kits, stock up on ammunition, get charcoal and be prepared to grill, have enough water to flush toilets, and so on and so forth, the people would have responded.

I told him that he had misunderstood what I said.  I meant that the only people who worry about preparations like this without being told to by the government is preppers, and that he was prepared because we talked about this sort of thing before.

He agreed.  Most of America is 24-48 hours from starvation and dehydration.  If the water system and/or electric grid goes down, people must be prepared for that.  Preparation isn’t just for the Northwestern redoubt, with all due respect to the folks at the Survival Blog.  In fact, it may be more difficult in an urban area like Austin than it would be in Idaho, weather notwithstanding.

News from New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire House is considering recommending a constitutional amendment that would prevent future state laws from restricting firearm ownership, one of a series of gun rights bills proposed this year.

The proposal, officially called Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 8 would prevent the Legislature from passing any law “restricting the right to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories.”

But some gun rights groups say that the amendment needs to be workshopped, and could have unintended consequences for firearms use in the state.

New Hampshire’s constitution already contains a version of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which states: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the State.”

This legislation would add two following sentences. “The Legislature shall enact no law that limits the right of a person to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories in any manner that would create a greater burden than that in federal law,” the amendment states. “Any federal law that infringes upon rights guaranteed in this New Hampshire Constitution shall be unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement.”

Rep. Terry Roy, the bill’s sponsor, said the amendment was intended to protect firearm rights, and stop the see-sawing of gun legislation between Republican and Democratic legislatures.

“The reason I’m introducing this bill is because I’ve heard from many constituents that they are frankly a little tired of every two years, or four years, or whatever it may be, that power shifts in the State House, and they are concerned about having their rights infringed upon based on whatever political winds are blowing in Concord,” said Roy, a Deerfield Republican.

The constitutional amendment would recognize the federal government’s ability to pass its own firearms restrictions, Roy said, but it would prevent local and state law enforcement from enforcing it. Those new restrictions could only be enforced by federal agents, Roy added.

Roy said he would prefer the amendment to prevent any federal firearms laws from taking jurisdiction, but thought that it wouldn’t be constitutional.

This would be a step in the right direction for New Hampshire, but it doesn’t go far enough.  As for Mr. Roy, he’s kicking the can down the road.  This is all going to come to a head sooner or later, and when it does, the question of constitutionality won’t come up except in law offices here and there.

On the street, the people will demand what they are demanding in other states like Missouri, namely, that state and county LEOs arrest and charge federal agents for enforcing federal gun control laws.

You can run, but you cannot hide.  This is coming, and it’s better to get state legislators on board now with what must be done.

Reddit/firearms.

My family and I had a pretty wild encounter with a deputy sheriff last year. The legal case has ended and I guess I can share the story with people now.

Every year my father in law sets up a legal dove hunt on opening weekend. This is private land in an extremely rural county. While the field last year was setup only about 1/2 mile from a road, the land is part of a fairly large cattle farm and we were over a mile away from the nearest neighbor.

We didn’t have that many birds coming in, but we were having a good time when at about 7:30AM a deputy sheriff pulled into the field with his lights on. He rolled down his window and said the hunt was over and we needed to pack up and leave.

My father in law said that we wouldn’t be doing that and asked if he was lost. The deputy went on to be a smart ass and then said that he would take everyone to jail if we didn’t leave. A few more words were exchanged and by this time myself and my husband had walked up to his window. The deputy proceeded to get out of his car and ordered my father in law to put his gun on the ground (it was a o/u with the beach open). When my father in law refused the deputy reached for his pistol. The sound of the safety clicking off on my husband’s Citori stopped the deputies hand immediately and my stomach knotted up.

My father in law knew his son would pull the trigger if the deputy threatened his life. I knew he would, and I’m pretty sure the deputy figured that out as well. To de-escalate a extremely tense situation my father in law wisely said we would leave.

Later, a game warden became involved.  Visit the reddit/firearms link to see what happened.  Also check out the comments.

One thing is for sure.  At number one on my list of people I don’t want as enemies is game wardens.

This is just an awful argument for open carry from Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms, but the objections of law enforcement are even worse.

If given my druthers, I’d probably never open carry a firearm outside of some form of pro-gun demonstration. I don’t see any advantage to it besides politics and even then, I personally believe that only goes so far.

That said, the right to do it should be unquestioned. I may not believe in doing it myself, but I’ll fight to my last breath to defend some else’s right to make a different decision.

[ … ]

After all, while I don’t agree with open carry from a more tactical standpoint, I do believe that such actions fall within the plain wording of the Second Amendment. Further, let’s not delude ourselves, there are already people carrying at all of these events Keel cites. The difference is whether clothing is hiding it or not.

Look, I get the concern. Even if you trust the guy with the permit, you may not trust the guy who goes for his gun due to obvious reasons, but thus far, it’s been a non-factor in every other state. Is Keel saying that South Carolinians are especially unstable, that they’re even less likely to obey the law in the presence of a firearm?

What is he even talking about in this last paragraph?  He’s contrasting people with a permit to people who “go for their gun.”  What?  What does that even mean?  Does Tom even know?

Anyway, beyond the awful and confusing rhetoric, I don’t get his “concern” nor the concern he apparently thinks is obvious and to which he is referring.

What Tom might have meant earlier in the commentary is that he doesn’t practice open carry and doesn’t choose to do it himself.  Whatever.  What he said is that he doesn’t “believe in it.”  What does that mean?  What does it mean to not believe in something but then to believe in it enough to be willing to fight to your last breath to defend it?

As to his alleged tactical advantage, I can prove that Tom “believes” in open carry regardless of what he claims.  So here it is, Tom.  Strap on a backpack for a three or four day trip, and make a trek through Jocassee Gorges in South Carolina, where hundreds of bears roam freely.  Do it alone.  Tell me that you want to have your firearm concealed rather than carried openly where you can get to it quickly if needed.

That’s what I thought.  See, I proved that Tom “believes” in open carry.  Don’t tell me to purchase a Hill People Chest Rig to carry it in.  Been there, done that.  When you spend all that money getting good gear to take the weight off of your shoulders and put in on your hips, that chest rig is okay for a day, but after two or three it begins work your neck and shoulders pretty hard.

There is a difference between open carry among, say, a concert of 30,000 people, and in the hills of upper South Carolina.  Or walking along the road at dusk versus walking in for a business meeting.

But even this is going to far for my tastes.  The last comment to Tom’s commentary shows what I mean.

I believe that the decision(s) for the state should not be to “allow” concealed or open carry, but instead, should be limited to background, to use of thought affecting medications, and access to or use of alcohol. When it comes to alcohol for instance, I see no problem with a firearm on site, with management, but I’ve read about open carry by employees of some ‘themed’ establishments.  The problem I see with the latter is an inebriated customer may decide to be playful and ‘take’ the firearm from the waitperson. I also see a new situation that has happened. The amount of new firearm owners with concealed carry permits has exploded. I think it may be time to look closer at the training permit holders have. I know that is anti-NRA and anti-2A but having so many millions of people carrying concealed firearms with a modest amount of training is an accident waiting to happen. I have been shooting for 62yrs. I began carrying before a permit was required. I still take a training course every year. I’m not saying that is what should be done, I know I’m doing more than needed, it’s a requirement of the club I belong to. I just think trying should be looked at, and a minimum should be required before a permit should be issued.

You see, this commenter believes in state permission as a precondition for the exercise of God-given rights, and his pretext is public safety, the same pretext cited by the state when they speak out against open carry.  Witness chief Mark Keel of S.C. SLED.

Chief Mark Keel of the State Law Enforcement Division put these concerns in perspective in addressing a proposed expansion of gun rights. The S.C. House measure (H. 3094) “would allow trained concealed weapons permit holders to carry those guns in the open,” he said in an article by Maayan Schechter and John Monk of The State newspaper.

“I’m a Second Amendment guy. Nobody believes any stronger than I do in the right to bear arms,” Keel said. In South Carolina and other Second Amendment Central places, it is necessary to establish one’s bona fide on rights. The Sun News Editorial Board is there, make no mistake.

Keel has “great concerns” about public safety: “I wonder how it will be in the summer time when people are strolling down Ocean Boulevard on peak weekends wearing guns openly, not to mention people openly carrying during Harley Week or Memorial Week and crowded country music festivals where there’s alcohol involved.”

He expressed his bona fides, and the only thing missing is his love for apple pie, puppies and the American flag.

The problem is that none of this matters.

Not tactical issues (Tom), not public safety (Mark), not anything.  None … of … this … matters.

Anything that can be done with an openly carried firearm can be done with a concealed firearm.  It’s an amazing thing that we actually have to cover this ground again, but the fact that someone cannot visually ascertain the presence of a firearm doesn’t mean it’s not there.  Any confusion on this fact points to a second-grader level psychological problem.

Some people choose to carry a firearm openly because they hate to sweat their weapon in the summer months, or because it’s just uncomfortable.  Some people choose to conceal their weapons because they think that there is some sort of tactical advantage.  Some people choose to openly carry their weapons because of appearances, others (mostly men) don’t care because we can use our girth to hide our weapons.

Others choose to openly carry because of the rapid access to the weapon (the example of hiking in Jocassee Gorges).  Still others choose to conceal because of what others might think.  The point is that people make their own choices, and it should be up to them how they carry their weapons, not the state.

As to these and all of the other objections, caveats, and qualifiers:

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

Did you get that?  None of them matter.  The state has no business dictating to a man or woman how to carry a weapon.  And Tom, you do us no favors by telling our opponents that you think there is a tactical disadvantage to open carry.  Maybe there is in some circumstances, maybe there isn’t, and it may depend upon the person, place, time and surroundings.  That, too, is none of your business.

As for the chief of SLED, he further states the following.

Keel said that open carry could cause issues for law enforcement officers responding to calls of a person brandishing a gun.

“Our (concealed weapon’s permit) law is one of the best in the country, and we have not had problems with concealed weapons holders,” Keel said. “But open carry creates a whole new dynamic.”

That’s a lie.  The South Carolina concealed weapons permit would only be one of the best in the country if it didn’t exist at all and there was permitless carry.  There should be no permission to be sought for the exercise of God-given rights.

And as to causing issues for law enforcement officers, you’re wrong about that.  So went the objection every other state (e.g., Texas, Arkansas, etc.) had to open carry.  None of these revisions to the code caused blood running in the streets.  You would think that opponents of open carry would have researched where this has been done before (46 other states) and been embarrassed to offer up such pablum for consumption by the ignorant and intellectually challenged legacy media.

As for making it easy for LEOs, I couldn’t possibly care less.  Teach them to holster their weapons until they know what’s going on.  Then we’ll all be safer from the copious law enforcement shootings that have become a scourge to the land.  Shootings of dogs, shootings of innocent people through their own front doors, and on and on.

I hate disinformation, lies, and pretend allies.  The SLED chief is no friend of the 2A.  And if Tom is, he needs to get better at his advocacy.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag

Dogs explain the internet from r/PublicFreakout

It proceeds apace.  This can be seen in recent movements towards gun control, or away from it.

Consider first the case of Utah.

Friday, February 12^th, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed HB 60 into law … House Bill 60, sponsored by Representative Walt Brooks (R-75), allows a law-abiding adult to carry a concealed firearm in the State of Utah, without first needing to obtain government permission. This ensures that citizens have their right to self-defense without government red tape or delays. Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP) system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.

Next up, consider the cases of Wyoming and Missouri.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 4, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

A coalition of 19 Republicans and a Libertarian introduced Senate Bill 81 (SF81) on Feb. 3. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

SF81 is similar to a bill moving forward in Missouri.

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:

• taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
• registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
• any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
• any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

As we’ve noted before, the state must be serious about it, serious enough to dispatch local and state law enforcement to arrest federal agents enforcing federal laws, with provision in the code to prosecute them.

There is also a permitless carry bill before the legislature in Tennessee.  Finally, South Carolina is considering open carry again.  It should be shameful to South Carolinians that the last holdout state on the last vote on dissolution of relations with Britain in the continental congress, their very own state, is also one of the final few states who disallows open carry.

If they’re able to hold the communists in Charleston, Columbia and Greenville in check, they may have a chance.  It’s died in committee before many times, and at least this time it’s getting a hearing.  We’ll see just how serious South Carolina is about driving a stake in the ground and saying, “Here I make my stand.”

Contrast that now with Rhode Island.

In our last email we referenced upcoming bills we knew were coming since some legislators had given us a heads-up. After their release we can confirm they are worse than anyone could have imagined and are, at this point, the most restrictive proposals in the country.

What’s so egregious about these bills? Just a single bill, their so-called high capacity magazine ban, would ban almost every single firearm on the market in addition to the ones you already own. Any magazine with a “removeable floorplate and the ability to be extended” will be illegal. This encompasses all semiautomatic handguns, rifles and some manually operated firearms. No purchasing, transferring nor grandfathering. It would require less effort to list the firearms you CAN own rather than the restrictions themselves.

Additional bills call for the removal of shall-issue gun permitting, a ban on most semi auto rifles and full medical release forms when purchasing a firearm.

And in California they can’t let a session go by without more anti-gun bills.  These are only a few of the examples we could cite.

These actions aren’t by accident, of course.  State and local governments know exactly what’s coming, and the resistance can be organized or chaotic, with bite, or without any, meaningful or meaningless.

Polarization is occurring, the pace has quickened, and the stakes for the future of liberty are very high.  It will all happen on the state and local level.  But make no mistake about it, sides are organizing and preparing the field.