Via reddit/firearms.

Oh that’s easy.  The Supreme Court has already spoken to this, as have lower courts.  Stops for lawful behavior aren’t allowed.

I think Justin Bamberg is a liar.  I think this is just a red herring.  I think this is the real reason.

“This bill is going to be very problematic for law-enforcement,“ said Representative Justin Bamberg of Bamberg, Barnwell, and Colleton Counties.

Bamberg is a gun-owning supporter of the 2nd Amendment, whose father, brother, and mother all have careers in law enforcement. His father is the current sheriff of Bamberg County.

His peeps aren’t so special any more if other people carry openly.  Bamberg is just hawking the law enforcement line.

Ask the other 46 states that have open carry.  The sky isn’t falling.  It’s all just lies.

And as for the bill, it should be considered the “Open Carry With Infringement Act” since it still requires government approval.

But of course they are.

“We don’t have any issue, and support the underlying policy that those that are legally permissible to carry possess a firearm and to defend themselves. What we think, though, is that the permit process allows us to actually do that by knowing if that person is lawful,” Musice said.

He added that 63,000 Tennesseans are considered “mentally defective,” meaning they cannot legally own a firearm for public safety reasons. Musice said when somebody wants to get a handgun in Tennessee right now, that point is checked to ensure that dangerous individuals, illegal immigrants, felons or mentally incapable people do not carry guns.

As for illegal immigrants, stop them at the border.  That’s the right solution.

As for “mentally defective,” maybe that’s too many.  Maybe you should purge the rolls.  And I’d be worried more about the mental defects working in the TBI.

A Stand-off it is, in Wyoming.

SUNDANCE — All 23 of Wyoming’s sheriffs have registered alarm at the damage a bill under consideration by the Legislature could do to policing in this state. Though the Second Amendment Preservation Act (House Bill 124/Senate File 81) is intended to be pro-Second Amendment, says Crook County Sheriff Jeff Hodge, its implications are strongly anti-law enforcement.

“It’s not intended to be anti-law enforcement, but it is,” he says. “The intention was good but they need to talk to peace officers and prosecutors.”

If this legislation is passed, the sheriff says, it could turn an ordinary arrest into a career-ending decision for a peace officer. While it does little to protect the average citizen and removes a protection that peace officers rely on, he says it only provides protection for one particular group: criminals.

The intent of the Second Amendment Preservation Act is to prevent firearms from being confiscated by federal entities due to federal laws that may be passed in the future, and it does this by holding state law enforcement officers accountable. However, while the sheriffs may have no issue with this as a concept, they feel the wording is extremely flawed.

The first section of concern states that no person, including a peace officer, shall have the authority to enforce any federal law or ordinance that infringes on a person’s right to keep and bear arms. Anyone who knowingly violates this or knowingly deprives a resident of Wyoming of their Second Amendment rights shall be liable for this action.

The second concerning section states that anyone who does so shall be “permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer” and immediately terminated from their position. The bill removes “qualified immunity,” a legal principle by which an officer is immune from civil suits unless the plaintiff can show they violated statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.

According to Hodge, Wyoming’s sheriffs were not consulted about this wording. Those involved in law enforcement on the ground could quickly have explained the problematic implications.

In a real-life situation where a crime has been committed, Hodge explains that a peace officer may seize a firearm, as evidence or to prevent further harm from being inflicted, for example. However, if the case becomes federal and the gun owner is ultimately not convicted of any crime and thus remains a law-abiding citizen, that decision would lead to the officer losing his job.

What a shame the cops weren’t “consulted.”

And the excuse is just rubbish.  It simply requires that police arrest criminals guilty of violation of state laws, not federal firearms laws.  In other words, state and local police cannot enforce federal firearms laws.

In my opinion this is still weak tea.  They should be ordered to arrest agents of the federal government trying to enforce federal firearms laws, but that’s not in the bill.

It should be easy enough to seize the firearms of people guilty of murder, or kidnapping, or rape, or robbery, or violation of any state law, while also refraining from arrests of people guilty of having 14.5″ barrels with stocks on their guns.

This all comes down to one thing: the Sheriff departments want to enforce federal firearms laws.  It’s that simple, and if you think not, explain in full detail how this assessment is wrong.  Do your homework.  You’ll be graded.

News from Houston.

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — A mother who pulled into a southwest Houston gas station overnight could never have imagined what happened next. Her 1-year-old baby in the backseat of her car was shot. The pair was caught in the middle as police confronted a chase suspect.

The shooting happened around 11:30 p.m. Wednesday at a Chevron gas station near the Southwest Freeway and Beechnut.

Police say the officer who opened fire didn’t know the baby was in the back seat.

The baby’s mother was parked at the gas station at pump 4. She was outside her car getting gas, and her baby was in the back seat.

Suddenly, a suspect in a black Mercedes crashed at the gas station, jumped out of the Mercedes, and got into her car, according to police.

Houston police had been chasing the man for about three miles. They say the black Mercedes he was driving was possibly linked to two aggravated robberies.

Officers thought he was about to steal the woman’s car.

Police say the man had a gun, so officers told him to drop it.

According to police, the man didn’t drop the gun, and that’s when the officer fired, hitting not only the suspect, but also the 1-year-old child in the backseat.

Your life is never in more danger than when the police are around.

The only thing left is for Art Acevedo to go in front of the cameras and tell everybody how great his officers are and how he has confidence in them.

I was in contact with South Carolina Carry today asking if they had a comprehensive email contact list for South Carolina legislators.  They don’t.

As followup to this post I had intended to begin making contact and learned that they (SC legislators) have begun to use the absurd contact forms.  In other words, they have cloistered themselves off and insulated themselves from their constituency.

This makes it very hard, as intended.  If anyone knows how to make contact with South Carolina legislators, especially if you have a comprehensive distribution list, that would be great.  Or if not, if there is some retired gun rights advocate who just wants to help in this endeavor, please feel free to post here, or email me.  Perhaps there is someone who has contacts inside the SC government who could assist us with this?

South Carolina Carry is also interested in such a list.

SGT.BAG.

The War on Guns will be as successful as the War on Drugs…….

Or the war on alcohol.  And they pulled out all the stops with prohibition.  Via WRSA, this article at Slate describes “The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.”

From an insightful comment to the ridiculous troll.  This comment was received into spam a few days ago from someone named John Q. Patriot concerning Ashli Babbit (I won’t supply his IP).

Never forget she died storming the capitol draped not in the flag of her country, but in the flag of the man inciting insurrection.

Insurrection.  He uses that word, but I don’t think he understands what it means.  Anyway, that does bring up an interesting point worthy of future discussion, that being the pledge of allegiance to flags, the biblical view of lawful oaths and vows as discussed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and so on.

This is fertile ground to be plowed from a theological perspective, but not now.  This will take time and effort.

The controllers are active.

The United State House of Representatives is expected to vote on “universal background check” legislation, H.R. 8, as early as next week. This bill is actually the criminalization of the private transfer of firearms. The House may also vote on the “Charleston Loophole” bill, which would allow the federal government to indefinitely delay a firearms transfer without supplying proof that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from doing so.

“Universal background check” legislation reintroduced by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) would criminalize the private transfer of firearms and targets gun owners for persecution. It could make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners for simply loaning a firearm to a friend or some family members.

One commenter remarks that “Scott, Rubio, Toomy, Porter, Collins, and Romney are a yes vote for both of these bills. It isn’t an easy battle. UBC can pass under foreseeable circumstances. This is actually a big deal.”

Rubio and Toomey for sure, probably Collins, and assuredly Romney.  I probably would have put Cornyn on that list as well.

Note the statement by Kissinger, who for all of his elitist, globalist faults, was correct in this: “A conventional army loses if it does not win.  The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.”

David Codrea.

Gun owners can thank supposed “originalist” Justice Antonin Scalia for perpetuating and solidifying the “confusion,” although it’s fair to suspect his motives were more deliberate than speculative.

[ … ]

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia volunteered, seemingly desperate to apologize for the majority ruling and to make a concession the gun-grabbers could use to later advantage.

I think Scalia was appealing to the beltway elitists for forgiveness.  As we’ve observed elsewhere:

Heller offers a Second Amendment cleaned up so that it can safely be brought into the homes of affluent Washington suburbanites who would never dream of resistance-they have too much sunk into the system–but who might own a gun to protect themselves from the private dangers that, they believe, stalk around their doors at night. Scalia commonly touts his own judicial courage, his willingness to read the Constitution as it stands and let the chips fall where they may. But Heller is noteworthy for its cowardice.

Rather than being a great victory for the second amendment, I believe the Heller decision was one root of our interpretational problems with it.

Codrea does offer the remedy.

“For someone represented by the establishment as an “originalist,” Scalia’s views were anything but. In A View of the Constitution, which colleague Brian Puckett writes “was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860,” William Rawle, “a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General,” offered a vastly different opinion.

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people,” Rawle declared. “Such a flagitious (think “shameful,” “wicked,” “criminal,” “villainous”) attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

Speaking of shameful, wicked, and criminal villains, fast-forward to the present. There is a Democrat eye-rolling feeding frenzy to strip Americans of what Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe called “the birthright of an American,” which he specifically identified as “every other terrible implement of the soldier.”

“[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people,” Coxe continued.”