Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

I have my disagreements with Larry Keane, but this piece at NSSF conveys buried but recently released views by the administration on so-called “smart guns.”

He’s right on one count. As vice president, he did deal with tech leaders to attempt combining authorized-user, or so-called “smart gun” technology into firearms. It didn’t work. It didn’t get to the point where it could even be properly tested.

[ … ]

Early on in the presidential campaign, President Biden claimed, “… we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it.” That’s some serious science-fiction fantasy technology. It makes for a good movie. In real life, it’s clumsy and failure prone at best and impossible at worst.

The president’s campaign trail claim of DNA-enabled smart guns is completely false. No one has introduced technology that would match a DNA sample to activate a firearm. However, attempts have been made at fingerprint-style authorized user-technology. Think of the way a fingerprint is used to open a smartphone. Now, think of all the times a smartphone won’t open when a fingerprint is applied. A little wet, not the right angle, dirty, God-forbid bloody… all these can cause a failure of the fingerprint lock to not activate the technology.

In a life-or-death situation when an individual is under duress and trying to activate the tool that would save their lives, swiping a fingerprint screen is the last concern. If your iPhone doesn’t open, you’re inconvenienced. If your firearm doesn’t work at the moment you need it you could be dead. That’s why study and survey work on this topic show that reliability is of paramount concern. Because the technology is not yet sufficiently reliable, there is very limited consumer interest in purchasing authorized-user equipped firearms.

[ … ]

Let me be explicitly clear, contrary to the false claims of gun control groups the firearm industry does not oppose the research and potential development of this technology being applied to firearms. Consumers are best left to decide what they want and the free market does a good job of weeding out bad ideas so good ones flourish. What NSSF strongly opposes, however, is the mandate of such technology, like what has recently been proposed by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.). She introduced H.R. 1008, legislation that would mandate that every gun sold within five years be equipped with the unworkable technology. It goes further. It also would require all legacy firearms be retrofitted within 10 years. That’s sure to go over well with collectors.

Here Larry simply isn’t precise enough.  I would love nothing more than for investors to throw their money away on this only to find out that no one wanted it.

What we must oppose, however, is government (think here taxpayer) sponsored research.  But one of the real reasons for such stuff wasn’t discussed.

A trio of computer scientists from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York recently published research detailing a potential AI intervention for murder: an ethical lockout.

The big idea here is to stop mass shootings and other ethically incorrect uses for firearms through the development of an AI that can recognize intent, judge whether it’s ethical use, and ultimately render a firearm inert if a user tries to ready it for improper fire.

That sounds like a lofty goal, in fact the researchers themselves refer to it as a “blue sky” idea, but the technology to make it possible is already here.

According to the team’s research:

Predictably, some will object as follows: “The concept you introduce is attractive. But unfortunately it’s nothing more than a dream; actually, nothing more than a pipe dream. Is this AI really feasible, science- and engineering-wise?” We answer in the affirmative, confidently.

The research goes on to explain how recent breakthroughs involving long-term studies have lead to th

e development of various AI-powered reasoning systems that could serve to trivialize and implement a fairly simple ethical judgment system for firearms.

This paper doesn’t describe the creation of a smart gun itself, but the potential efficacy of an AI system that can make the same kinds of decisions for firearms users as, for example, cars that can lock out drivers if they can’t pass a breathalyzer.

This just gets better and better.  As I’ve said before, “Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.”

Now, consider the superimposition of an AI ethical lockout on top of all of the other failure modes introduced by this “technology” (I use the word loosely, because improved technology is something that should make the machine simpler and less prone to failure modes, not more complex and more prone to failure).

Also as I’ve observed, the desire to control others is the signal pathology of the wicked.  In the instance of smart guns, the control is just remote rather than just at the point of purchase.

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.

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.

News from Tennessee.

Is anyone surprised that those who risk financial loss (instructors for state-required classes) are opposed to this bill?

Recently introduced.

H.R.825 – To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention.

H.R.880 – To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to remove the exclusion of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from the definition of consumer product in order to permit the issuance of safety standards for such articles by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

H.R.881 – To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public health.

H.R.882 – To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale or other disposition of a firearm to, and the possession, shipment, transportation, or receipt of a firearm by, certain classes of high-risk individuals.

Just in the interest of keeping you posted and properly informed.

Breitbart.

Soldiers were told the list came from the Department of Homeland Security and was an updated list of what federal and local law enforcement need to be “on the lookout for,” according to the source.

Henry “told us that if anyone gets caught wearing, buying, selling, affiliated with in any way, any of those things on those list, that the first thing he’s going to do is chapter us out of the Army. The second thing is, he’s going to handle the investigation by sending it over to the DHS,” the source said. “He didn’t quite outright say that we would be arrested, he used the word ‘detained.’”

Some of the imagery on the slides clearly refer to hate symbols, such as a swastika or other Nazi-related symbols. However, also included is “Pepe the Frog” — an internet meme frequently posted by members of the political right to troll the political left.

[ … ]

More worrying for some soldiers, however, is the list’s inclusion of imagery popular among members of the military long before the racial unrest of the summer of 2020, such as the “Three Percenters” symbol — the Roman numeral III with 13 stars around it.

In fact, until recently, graduates of the SWMG’s Trauma III course had the option to buy a shirt with a Three Percenter logo on the front, the source said.

“Now those shirts, all of them have to be thrown away, and cannot be worn again and they have to change the logo because it’s been associated with these extremist behavior,” the source said.

[ … ]

I was 18 when I got it. It was described to me as the percentage of colonists that rose up against the government of the British … . I was like, ‘Wow, that is such an American sentiment, a patriotic sentiment.’ Coming from a military family, I thought that really spoke to me. I always was proud to be an American. I’m very proud to be an American.

Rohrwasser also had the American flag, “Liberty or Death,” and “Don’t Tread on Me,” tattooed on him, but nevertheless apologized for the Three Percenters tattoo and had it removed.

The slides, which are marked “law enforcement sensitive,” describe the “Three Percenters” as a “North American militia movement/paramilitary-style group with members who adhere to a far-right/libertarian ideology with a primary focus on firearms ownership right and opposition to expansive U.S. federal government authority.

Well, firearms ownership is a right granted by God.  And most people with a brain and a conscience are opposed to totalitarianism.

Good Lord.  He apologized for a tatoo?  He had it removed?  That’s painful and expensive from what I understand.

So I guess we’re left to conclude that the DHS, to whom people with tattoos are to be turned over, think that the war of independence was immoral and would have been in support of continuing to be subjects of the king?

What else could we conclude?

Anyway, hopefully ‘Karen’ feels safer today.  That’s what most important.

Via WiscoDave.

Substack.

The bill requires a psychological evaluation of a minimum of three, likely four, possibly five people before granting each license. Could be eight or more in a big household. Let’s say four on average.

There were over 100-million-gun owners in the United States at the beginning of 2020. The “Covid-19 toilet paper hoarder prepper” gun-buying-spike, the “BLM fear of police” gun-buying-spike, the “suburban fear of police defunding” gun-buying-spike, and the “fear of gun controlling politicians seizing guns” gun-buying-spike, all intersected to increase that number by an additional five million more new gun owners, most of which were liberals, some of which voted for the bill’s sponsor Sheila Jackson Lee. One in 20 gun owners today is a new owner, by conservative estimates. 105-million-gun owners at a minimum, likely more.

This bill would require the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to perform 420 million psychological evaluations within the span of three months. A psychological evaluation takes between 30 to 90 minutes to complete, so let’s say an hour.

There are 106,000 licensed psychologists in the United States. If every single psychologist in the country were drafted into the Army and then repurposed to aid the ATF in their registration effort, each psychologist would have to perform 3,962 hours worth of evaluations in order to handle the load, or approximately two full years of 40-hour work weeks. If, on the other hand, they were required by their new ATF slave drivers to process the full load within the three-month timeframe specified by the law, they would be doing seven million evaluations per day, requiring 66 hours worth of work in each 24-hour day for three months. This is third grade math. Even kindergarteners know there aren’t 66 hours in a day.

And that’s all presuming that you even could draft every psychologist in the country into the ATF somehow, and further presuming that all those psychological patients they’re seeing and helping could be put on hold for two years without serious drawbacks, such as perhaps maybe one of them shooting up a school.

The average psychologist’s salary in the USA is $105,000 per year. There are around 1960 hours in a work year for federal employees presuming they get federal holidays off and two weeks vacation. That means 214,285 work years to process these permits just on the psychological evaluation criteria alone, at a salaried cost of 22.5 billion dollars. This is approximately the same cost as building two manned moon bases, presuming that the ATF is efficient enough to line up eight evaluations per psychologist per day, which they assuredly won’t be.

Further, we happen to already know how many people such an effort would save from homicide. A mathematical analysis I performed for Open Source Defense showed that based on solid science by Michael Siegel at Boston University, almost every gun control measure ever studied had zero impact on gun homicide. And while this bill includes plenty of elements which are scientifically proven not to work …

The absurdity of the proposal is obvious to everyone with two brain cells.  There are several possibilities.  First, this turns into a massive FedGov program designed to slow down and even stall completely the exercise of God-given rights (does a FedGov program do otherwise?).  Second, the proposal is so awful and ridiculous that gun owners nationwide give a big sigh of relief when what comes out isn’t quite as bad, with leaders jumping to the front of the line to Negotiate Rights Away.

Via David Codrea, our friend Dave Hardy is trying to help out fight the forces of totalitarianism.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed an amicus brief in a federal case that is trying to force the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to define certain firearms components as “firearms.”

“Forcing ATF to adopt the new approach to classification of certain gun components that the plaintiffs in this case are demanding would greatly expand ATF authority beyond the 1968 Gun Control Act,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If their effort succeeds, it would violate rights protected by the Second Amendment by imposing restrictions on otherwise lawful Second Amendment activity excluded from the GCA.”

Consistent with congressional intent under the GCA, ATF long ago determined that unfinished frame and receiver blanks without any machine work or indexing have not yet reached a stage of manufacture in which they are classified as firearm frames or receivers under the GCA. Various special interests are now challenging ATF’s interpretation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is known as City of Syracuse, NY et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al.

The lawsuit was filed last year by the Cities of Syracuse, N.Y., San Jose, Calif., Chicago, Ill., and Columbia, S.C. along with the billionaire-backed Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. In addition to ATF as an agency, defendants include Acting ATF director Regina Lombardo in her official capacity, plus the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney General.

At issue are such things as frame blanks or partially-manufactured frames for firearms, also commonly known as “80% frames” or “unfinished receivers.”

Because you see, unless you’re a member of a control freak cult, a box of aluminum is just a box of aluminum.  Beyond that, a complete receiver is just an additional collection of springs and a few parts.

News from New Zealand.

The New Zealand Police summarized the newly prohibited firearms as follows:

• Semi-automatic pistols (semi-automatic firearms less that 762mm in overall length) that are not “small” semi-automatic pistols.

• Note: a “small semi-automatic pistol” (excluded) is a semi-automatic pistol that:

• has an overall length of 400 millimetres or less, excluding any silencer, pistol carbine conversion kit, or other muzzle-fitting attachment; and

• has a barrel length of 101 millimetres or more; and

• is capable of firing specified ammunition (ammunition used on pistol shooting ranges approved by the Commissioner) only at a muzzle velocity of 1,600 feet per second or less; and

• is suitable for shooting on a certified pistol range.

• Centrefire pump-action rifles that are capable of being used with a detachable magazine, or that have a non-detachable magazines (tubular or otherwise) that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges commensurate with that firearm’s chamber size.

First it was long guns, now it’s pistols and believe it or not, repeaters.  Pump action centerfire rifles.

All gun control is wicked has its roots in government fear of the people.  If not for government malfeasance and corruption, they would have no reason to fear the people. The government of New Zealand is literally fearful of the people owning repeaters.

The text of bill H.R. 127 is up, and boy is it a doozey.  It’s the entire package of awfulness the controllers have wanted forever.

So here are some takeaways for this bill, but I’ll link the FPC summary momentarily.

Federal registration of all firearms.

A national gun registry.

Limitations on types of firearms.

Federally mandated insurance, expensive, and managed by the FedGov (some $800 per year).

Psychological evaluations by state-approved psychologists for approval to purchase firearms.

Those evaluations are extended to family members (including former spouses).

Prohibition of person-to-person transfers.

Prohibition of standard capacity magazines.

From the FPC.

Summary: Establishes a nationwide gun registry that is searchable by the general public, mandates licensing to own or possess a firearm and requires a psychological evaluation prior to obtaining such a license, and institutes magazine & gun bans. 

The bill text is finally out and HR 127 is worse than we were even speculating.

HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by federal, state, and local governments, including the military – even the GENERAL PUBLIC! The system will track the make, model, and serial number of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they are being stored.

You read that right. HR 127 would make public your most private information to anti-gunners who can then dox, harass or even attack you while knowing full well every intimate detail of your self-defense systems. 

The system will also track firearms loans, including the ID of the loan recipient and for how long it is being loaned. This bill applies retroactively, so current firearms owners will have three months to supply their gun information to the federal government from the bill’s effective date.

HR 127 also establishes a federal licensing requirement. Applicants will have to be at least 21, undergo a NICS check, complete a psychological evaluation, complete 24 hours of firearms training, and pay $800 for firearms insurance from the government.

TRANSLATION: You not only have to PAY the government for the privilege of owning guns already in your possession; you also have to convince an anti-gunner that you deserve to keep your rights!

For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’ spouses and at least two other family members or associates to “further determine the state of the mental emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.” Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter whether the individual sought help voluntarily.

And who gets the say in whether you can exercise your fundamental rights: the Attorney General, who will in all likelihood be Merrick Garland – an anti-gun extremist previously nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama.

HR 127 will also establish licensing requirements for the display of antique firearms and for the right to possess “military-style weapons.” To display an antique, applicants have to prove they own an antique firearm, describe how they will display it, and demonstrate that they have “safe” storage for it. To possess a “military-style weapon”, applicants will have to undergo 24 hours of safety and live fire training. It is unclear whether this training is in addition to the base 24 hours of training required to possess firearms and ammunition. “Military-style weapons” are defined as they are under assault weapons bans like those in California and New Jersey – weapons are identified by name or because they possess two or more features found on commonly owned, modern semiautomatic firearms such as an adjustable stock, pistol grip, etc.

Finally, HR 127 also criminalizes the possession of “large-capacity magazines” (those carrying greater than 10 rounds) and “ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.”

Presently, there is no grandfathering clause in this legislation. Meaning you will have to choose between keeping your magazines and being fined and sent to prison.. potentially for decades!

Importantly, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to comply with this legislation. The bill doesn’t even specify how any of these measures will be implemented. Instead, it tasks the Attorney General with creating systems for enforcement while still holding gun owners to ironclad compliance dates.

Reddit/Firearms is discussing this here, here, here, here and here.

I suspect one of the intended consequences of this legislation is that there would be massive noncompliance.  Larger manufacturers like Daniel Defense and Aero Precision would undergo large layoffs and cutbacks, while smaller manufacturers would simply go out of business.

Merely purchasing a firearm from an FFL would involve FedGov paperwork, and noncompliance will involve not purchasing from an FFL.  This would have a large effect on the firearms market – again, all intended.