Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

First up, I had failed to mention that David Codrea did a followup at Ammoland on the commentary Rob Pincus co-authored supporting universal background checks.

Second, Anthony Garcia, president of Save The Second, ostensibly a Rob Pincus organization, wrote a commentary at Ammoland defending Rob, or so it seems from his words.  He pleads for unity.

I am sure by now most of you have read Rob Pincu’s article. And if you haven’t read his co-authored article with Dan Gross and only the commentary about it then I would highly suggest you go read it and listen to his videos about it. Nearly all the attention that has been focused on the article has revolved around his discussion of background checks.

What this article has done is laid bare the state of the Second Amendment community. And this has shown us that there is a demonstrable lack of unity, far too much knee-jerk reactionism, and little to no focus placed on messaging and narrative. A portion of Rob’s article was related to those last two topics, narrative and messaging, yet no attention has been paid to them. Ironically, controlling the narrative is one of the few ways that we will win and something that everyone can play a part in. Let’s discuss these topics one at a time, beginning with unity.

Gun control extremists and proponents of citizen disarmament have shown us for decades why it is important to maintain a united front. They have maintained an appearance of unity through thick and thin, regardless of nearly any scandal that comes out against one of their own, and they have plenty of legislative and cultural victories to show for it.

We must stay on point with our messaging and not allow ourselves to be distracted by internal politics.

There, you have the gist of it.

But the problem is that a discussion about whether we are going to support a bill that effectively creates a national gun registry isn’t about internal politics.  We covered that in my response.  This commentary by Garcia reeks of a demand for agreement with Rob, with the tool of extortion being the appearance of lack of unity.

But the lack of unity wasn’t created by me, or most of my readers.  It was created by Rob.  One cannot simply defenestrate one of the core doctrines of liberty and then demand agreement with those who love liberty by simply appealing to unity.

This has been the trick of traitors, quislings and turncoats for millennia.  It has occurred that way in politics (witness the tide of collectivism in America over the past 150 years), the church (witness here the agreement of the mainline Presbyterian church [PCUAS] with the Auburn Affirmation in 1924, and in gun control (witness the push towards UBC, a renewed AWB, permitting schemes, etc.).  Many more thousands of examples could be given.

The example of the Auburn Affirmation should be telling.  It reads at the beginning, “An Affirmation
designed to safeguard the unity and liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America Submitted for the consideration of its ministers and people.”  Unity, they said.  Unity means everything.

In that document, the ministers and elders of the PCUSA denied that the Scriptures are the word of God (they only “contain” the word of God), denied the deity of Christ, denied … They had the audacity to affirm that “The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life, and weakens the testimony of the church to the power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ.”  A bolder lie cannot be imagined.

Concerning the person and work of Jesus, they affirm that “we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.”

This all led to the separation of the PCA and OPC from the PCUSA.  And unity in politics has led to the separation of the people from the controllers.  And we must separate from Rob Pincus and anyone else who affirms that UBC must be approved.  Amos 3:3 rhetorically asks, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?”

They can’t.  And we cannot walk with Rob Pincus, or Mr. Garcia for that matter.  Unity in error is no unity at all.  No, we can’t all just get along – not when core values are at stake.

Here is the last question: Is this the sort of commentary we should expect from Ammoland in the future?

Just The News.

A strong majority of U.S. voters in a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen – including nearly half of Democratic voters surveyed – say they would prefer to live in communities where gun ownership is legal.

Sixty-three percent of voters said they would prefer to “live where individuals are allowed to own guns.” Just 26% said they would prefer to reside “where guns are outlawed.”

The remaining 12% was unsure.

Well that rather harshes the narrative, yes?  Remember that the vast majority of people believe in the right of self defense.  Not that it should matter to you whether people recognize your God-given duty when it concerns your conduct, but it’s interesting to note that the constant barrage of narrative in support of gun control is just that – a barrage, sound and fury signifying nothing.

If people really believed what they say people believe, then they wouldn’t have to repeat it all the time.

TTAG.

The Supreme Court has denied the cert petition of the New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal in Defense Distributed v. Grewal. In that case, Defense Distributed had sued Grewal for his efforts to restrain (and threats to prosecute) Defense Distributed’s distribution of various 3D print files for firearms and accessories.

The district court granted Grewal’s motion to dismiss, finding that his sending a threatening letter to Defense Distributed in Texas was insufficient to justify jurisdiction over him in a Texas federal court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, disagreed.

As a result, AG Grewal will now have to justify his posturing, threats, and interference with Defense Distributed’s business in a Texas federal court…in a circuit that has already made it clear that it believes that governmental efforts to restrict Defense Distributed’s distribution of 3D files have very serious if not fatal First Amendment implications.

It’s ridiculous that anyone would think you could stop this signal now anyway.  This is intellectual material, plans, specifications, drawings.

But it’s very nice, I admit, that the arrogant, pompous, conceited, self-righteous collectivists and controllers in New Jersey and their awful AG have to try this case in a hostile venue.

Good.

GOA.

Springfield, VA – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, which had denied GOA’s motion for a preliminary injunction on bump stocks. Gun Owners of America is seeking an injunction to prevent ATF from implementing a final rule incorrectly classifying bump stocks as machineguns under federal law.

This case was brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel, and GOA’s Texas Director, Rachel Malone.

Dave Hardy has additional details.

“Notwithstanding the ATF’s frequent reversals on major policy issues, we understand that the Court would consider the bureaucrats at the ATF as experts in firearms technology. But that technical knowledge is inapposite to the question of what should be criminally punished and what should not.”

“Consistent with our precedent and mandated by separation-of-powers and fair-notice concerns, we hold that an administering agency’s interpretation of a criminal statute is not entitled to Chevron deference. Consequently, the district court erred by finding that the ATF’s Final Rule, which interpreted the meaning of a machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), was entitled to Chevron deference. And because we find that “single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, we further hold that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun because a bump stock does not enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Accordingly, we find that Plaintiffs-Appellants are likely to prevail on the merits and that that their motion for an injunction should have been granted.”

Here is the ruling.  Occasionally a court gets it right.  One may suppose that the DoJ/ATF knew the weakness of using executive orders to supplant federal law.  Any case that has hinged on ownership of a bump stock should now be appealed.

We will all answer for what we say and what we believe.  This girl has added to her judgment.

If one takes this patronizing argument at face value, one must also accept that gun buyers, too, are at risk of making impulsive decisions they might regret—hurting other people. But there is an important difference between these two categories of ostensibly regrettable decisions: Only one brings harm to others. One decision leads to the termination of one’s own pregnancy, and the other to the murder of breathing, life-living, outside-the-womb human beings.

There are few clearer statements of a society’s values than this: We place more trust in the self-knowledge and decision-making skills of a would-be mass murderer than we do in a pregnant woman. To put it another way, in Georgia, it is easier for a man to gain the capacity to maim and kill other people’s bodies than for a woman to obtain medical care for her own.

On Wednesday, Cherokee County Sheriff Frank Reynolds said that Long “gave no indicators that this was racially motivated.” Instead, law enforcement officials said, Long claims he is addicted to sex, and the spas were a “temptation he wanted to eliminate.” This attempt to disentangle race from sex and gender, and racism from misogyny, is wrongheaded and futile. The fact that Long targeted Asian-owned spas, and that the majority of his victims were Asian women, is no coincidence; the “temptation” he cites—and his decision to visit violence upon the particular people and places he blamed for it—didn’t come from nowhere. However Long explains himself, the devaluing and hypersexualization of Asian women and their labor are essential context for his crimes.

She has no idea what the motivation was for the shooting.  She’s just making that up, and she’s paid to be offended.

On the other hand, by treating the unborn as not worthy of life and not even created and designed by God, she may as well throw children into the fire for Molech.

Over the weekend we linked a hysterical piece opposing open carry in S.C.  He recapitulates his points and gets even more hysterical.

“This is sending a message that these legislators and myself stand with the citizens of South Carolina to protect our constitutional freedoms,” Cox said this week.

Double hogwash.  Citizens currently can legally purchase guns. Not having open carry does not impinge on their freedoms.  Rather, they just have to follow reasonable rules — just as they do if they want to drive cars or live in a civilized society.

We might be tempted to explain that driving cars isn’t mentioned in the constitution, or to correct his wording (“impinged” isn’t the right choice of wording).

That would miss the point.  Rules are all “reasonable” if he agrees with them.  Even the act of living requires his rules.

He is a controller.  He is god.

South Carolina has their collectivists too.

What South Carolina legislators do not need to do is to expand the pervasiveness of guns.  Already on the books are processes and procedures for citizens who want to be armed to get concealed weapons permits if they want more security.

But is that good enough?  Apparently not.  Hours after the Atlanta slaughter, South Carolina House members threw caution to the wind and passed a bill that will thrust handguns into the open.

S.C. Rep. Phillip Lowe, R-Florence, actually had the gall to say on the House floor this week that open carry was needed because of South Carolina’s heat.  Opening his jacket at the podium, he said when someone with a concealed weapons permit was carrying a gun they would violate the permit if they took off the jacket because it was hot … and that’s why open carry was needed.

Really? Was he serious?  In my book, if you have a concealed permit and you want to carry, you should put up with a little sweat as the price to pay to feel safe.  Guns that are out in the open are much more dangerous than one locked away at home.

And right there in the final paragraph he explains his psychological problem, the one that really requires professional help to ameliorate.

First he explains that he understands that people carry concealed weapons.  Then he contrasts that with weapons remaining and locked away at home.  You see, to him, if he can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.

This is a mental dysfunction, and he understands that it is, but in order to help himself, he’s willing to sacrifice your liberties.  He refers to “my book.”  That’s his book of rules for everyone.

And you know what I’ve observed about people who have rules for everybody else.  The desire to control others is the signal pathology of the wicked.

UBC passes the U.S. House as we all knew it would.  What happens now is anybody’s guess.

Sham writers are pushing the same cockamamie stories all over the place to try to help this along, and at least one commenter believes it stands to be defeated in the senate.

Schumer also said he doubts he’ll get the 10 turn coat Republicans that he needs for the bill to get to the Senate floor.

That’s not the story the communists tell.

Under current Senate rules, 60 votes are necessary to overcome a filibuster, and the Democrats control the evenly divided chamber only by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris’s ability to cast tie-breaking votes as the presiding officer of the Senate. Murphy thinks getting 10 members of McConnell’s caucus to oppose a gun-control filibuster is possible. 

“You know, his members have expressed to me over the past several years that they want to get right on this issue. So I don’t think we should accept that there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate for universal background checks,” Murphy said. “So much has changed. The political power of the anti-gun-violence movement is infinitely stronger. The NRA is a shell of itself. And so I’ve had a lot of Republican members come to me and express their willingness to take a new look.”

Anyway, here are the turncoats.

Vern Buchanan (FL)
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
Maria Salazar (FL)
Andrew Garbarino (NY)
Chris Smith (NJ)
Fred Upton (MI)
Carlos Gimenez (FL)
Adam Kinzinger (IL)

I notice that three of them are from Florida, and two of those are Hispanic/Latino.  I bring this up because it pertains to immigration, political proclivities and maintenance of our liberties.

In the mail:

Today, the House passed House Bill 134 by a vote of 72-44. The bill expands the ability of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones while attending religious worship. This is similar to the Senate Bill 43 that the Senate recently passed.

House Bill 134 allows law-abiding citizens who hold a concealed handgun permit to carry a handgun to defend themselves and their loved ones when attending religious worship taking place on private property that is both a school, and place of worship, if it does not prohibit firearms. This empowers private property owners to set their own security policy, rather than the state imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. In 2019, an armed citizen defended his church against an individual in Texas. This worshiper, Jack Wilson, was able to take action because of similar, NRA-backed legislation in Texas.

Last year, a similar bill, the 2^nd Amendment Preservation Act, passed both chambers with bipartisan majorities after stalling the year before. It moved through the legislative process quickly last year because of strong leadership demonstrated in both chambers. Unfortunately, Governor Roy Cooper chose to veto this critical bill, and the General Assembly was unable to override it.

Roy Cooper is a dick.  I know this.  It happens every time the idiots in NC elect a democrat to the governor’s office.  It’s bad when they elect a republican (Pat McCrory gave us toll roads).  It’s simple awful when a democrat is elected.

The guns in churches bill (attached to church schools that is, because it’s already legal to carry in church) will be vetoed by Cooper, and the legislature won’t be able to override it.  Anyway, don’t worry about what’s legal when it comes to your family’s safety.

Cooper also said this.

“I expect Republican leadership in our North Carolina legislature to follow a lot of other state legislatures in using this ‘big lie’ of voter fraud as an excuse for laws that suppress the vote,” Cooper, a Democrat, said during a POLITICO Live event. “Let’s just get real about it: These laws are intended to discourage people from voting.”

“The good thing about having enough Democrats in my state legislature to uphold a veto is that we can stop some of those things,” Cooper said on Thursday. “It’s going to fall on the states in order to fight that off.”

And thus you know where he stands.  His wife is an even worse person than he is – if that seems possible.

David Codrea.

“The regulation of guns in Myanmar is categorized as restrictive,” GunPolicy.org documents. That’s a globalist citizen disarmament project of the Sydney School of Public Health that partners with the World Health Organization and the United Nations, but which I nonetheless turn to in order to check on laws from around the world. In Myanmar’s case:

“[T]he right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by …  civilians are not allowed to possess any  … no civilian (except for ethnic Chin hunters)… may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition … the maximum penalty for unlawful possession of a firearm is three to seven years in prison…”

[ … ]

What those in the media wringing their hands over Myanmar refuse to acknowledge is the citizen disarmament they demand, and the eradication of the most egalitarian power-sharing arrangement ever conceived, is what makes tyranny possible.

Those who want you to turn in your guns, have no intention of doing so.