Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

News from Missouri.

Relatives of one of three people shot to death in Springfield in 2018 are suing Academy Sports and Outdoors for selling bullets to a woman who gave them to the man charged in the killings.

The lawsuit alleges a worker at Academy Sports in Springfield should have realized the woman who bought the bullets, Nyadia Burden, intended to give them to Luiz Perez. The 24-year-old Perez couldn’t buy ammunition because he was in the country illegally, had no driver’s license and was facing felony charges, according to police. The lawsuit also names Burden.

Perez is facing the death penalty in the Oct. 31, 2018, deaths of his ex-roommates, 38-year-old Steven Marler and 23-year-old Aaron “Josh” Hampton, and the wounding of two others. Prosecutors allege he fatally shot Sabrina Starr, 21, the next day. She had provided him with the gun he used, police said.

The lawsuit alleges that Perez, Burden and Aaron Anderson went to Academy Sports after a Walmart worker refused to sell them bullets.

The lawsuit contends Academy employees did not try to determine whether Perez was legally able to buy ammunition, even though it was clear that Perez and Burden were together, The Springfield News-Leader reported. He handed her the box of bullets and gave her $20 to pay.

A spokeswoman for Texas-based Academy Sports did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Federal immigration authorities said in 2018 that Perez should have faced deportation proceedings after a previous arrest in Middlesex County, New Jersey, but he was released because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement request didn’t meet the county’s required criteria.

Perez was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. Anderson was charged with being an accessory to first-degree murder and Burden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder.

The lawsuit was filed May 1 on behalf of Hampton’s parents and son. The relatives are asking for compensation for pain and suffering and for costs such as funeral expenses.

Hampton’s family’s attorney, Craig Heidemann, said the family respects people’s right to bear arms but wants to encourage firearm dealers to obey regulations designed to keep guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands.

This is an interesting case but not really dissimilar from the one faced by Remington (in Connecticut) or by Daniel Defense (in Nevada).

Follow me.  To begin with, this would never have happened if illegals were not allowed in the country.  The very same courts that prevent the deportation of illegals and find virtually every immigration law unconstitutional complain about guns when one of them uses a weapon to commit a crime.  The fault is never the person or system of laws.

Second, the point should be made that even if our borders were secured, this could still happen.  The fact that it happened due to an illegal isn’t relevant to the case.  A gun shop can no more ensure that guns or ammunition aren’t used for nefarious purposes than a car dealership can ensure that the buyer won’t use a new vehicle to intentionally run over people.

And yet here we are, with the system of protection set up by Congress summarily ignored by the courts, people blaming crime on guns, and gun or ammunition manufacturers or sellers being held responsible for everything a buyer does.

It’s quite an effective means of gun control, yes?  So even if Academy Sports wins, they lose because of the legal fees.

David Codrea.

… Rolling Stone has always been one of its most transparent promoters.

As for what those “loose gun laws” are, evidently they’re referring to the fact that criminals can find ways to get around the strict ones. In this case, the “gun law” violations are tied to a retired police officer, from the very class of citizens gun-grabbers tell us are the “Only Ones” we can trust with guns. Add to that their main subject was “a licensed gun dealer since 2007, and had acquired additional federal licenses to manufacture ammunition and possess machine guns.”

Yea, how did the FedGov treat their star patsy, their “main subject?”

Also, it was never really fertile ground to claim that guns mainly come from the U.S.

“Most cartels buy in bulk, and the weapons are coming from places like Nicaragua and other South American countries. Also Asia and some from the Middle East,” a Tijuana-based police authority who requested anonymity explained. “And, another factor is the CNC machines making uppers in clandestine shops in Mexico.”

Don’t tell Eric Holder.  His feelings may still be a little raw over this deal.

News from one of the corrupt circuits.

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal appeals court has rejected a Utah gun enthusiast’s attempt to block a Trump administration rule that bans a gun accessory known as a bump stock.

A three-judge panel from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld a district court ruling last year that found Clark Aposhian wasn’t likely to win his challenge to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule that classifies bump stocks as machine guns. The court also found that he failed to show that blocking the ban would not hurt the public’s interest.

“Moreover, the public has a strong interest in banning the possession and transfer of machine guns, including bump stocks. The ban supports the safety of the public in general, and the safety of law enforcement officers and first responders,” according to the 2-1 decision.

Continuing the mythology, I see, as long as it serves their interests.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Joel Carson concluded that a semiautomatic weapon equipped with a bump stock isn’t a machine gun under federal law.

To be considered a machine gun the trigger must function only once to fire more than one shot, and the mechanism that allows the trigger to function must be self-acting or self-regulating, he wrote.

“So does a bump stock increase the speed by which the user can fire rounds? Yes,” Carson wrote. “But does that mean the firearm to which it is attached is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act? No.”

He has a sense of honor, so he lacks the necessary temperament to sit on a court of any kind.

Never forget it was the NRA and Trump who gave you this.

David Codrea.

We know how most Californians vote and the enabling effect that has on citizen disarmament edicts just by looking at the state’s politics. We also know that a Latino population that became the majority turned the Golden State blue.

That’s a population that according to all observable realities as well as all credible polls is overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-gun. That means “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners, which is why they’re all pushing for it. And that means if unchecked, it will result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass whatever anti-gun edicts they want while confirming judges who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date.

David took the words right out of my mouth (actually, I’m just quoting him).  Everytown and Bloomberg want to turn Texas blue and are spending millions to do it.  They did it in Virginia, and they can do it in Texas.

Why do they think it just might work?  Demographics.  If Latinos didn’t vote against gun rights, they wouldn’t have targeted Texas to begin with.

There is more, of course, but there’s all the proof you need to know how Latinos vote.  They wouldn’t be throwing that much money away if it was obviously a losing cause.

Via David Codrea, it isn’t just rifles he’s interested in.  News from the land up North.

A government official speaking on background at a technical briefing for journalists said the number of these now-banned firearms currently in circulation is unknown.

Some of the firearms being prohibited are currently classified as “non-restricted” — mostly firearms like shotguns — meaning licensed owners do not have to register them with the police. (The long-gun registry was abolished by the previous Conservative government.)

There are 105,000 firearms currently classified as “restricted” that will now be classified as “prohibited.”

The government official said that, at the end of the two-year amnesty, gun owners must dispose of the firearm or they may be able apply for the firearm to be “grandfathered.” Details on the grandfather process would be released at a later date, the official said.

As we all know, that’s the purpose of a registry – to know who has them and where to go to pick them up (by them, I mean both the guns and the people).

Y’all folks in Canada are in a bad way, being subjects of the Queen.  The truth is, however, we may not be far behind.

You have two years to make your plans.  Don’t turn in your guns.

WSJ.

What an enormous abdication. The Supreme Court ducked its first Second Amendment case in a decade on Monday, and the only plausible explanation is that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to avoid becoming a target of vengeful Senate Democrats.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the Chief joined the four liberals and a (conflicted) Justice Brett Kavanaugh in declaring moot a challenge to New York City’s onerous gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York). At issue is a New York City rule that prevents residents with gun licenses from transporting their guns from their city homes to shooting ranges and homes outside the city. Obtaining even a “premises” license requires a $431 fee and police investigation into an applicant’s mental health, criminal history and moral character. It can take six months.

A few points of order.  First, the SCOTUS didn’t have to drop the case.  They can accept anything they want.  Second, New York can go right back to legislating liberty away now, and an aggrieved party must go through the process all over again.  It games the system, and we and they all know it.

Third, the WSJ is assuming that Roberts is a coward.  This may be true, but it also may be true that he fears nothing from Senators and is simply a controller at heart.  Fourth, assuming that he really was afraid of the Senators and is awaiting a less divisive time to rule on the 2A, he’s ignorant.  America is becoming more polarized, not less.

On the mootness point, Justice Alito also pokes his colleagues with this hypothetical: “A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit?” You know the answer.

Justice Kavanaugh’s role here is curious because, while he joined the majority on mootness, he wrote a concurrence agreeing with the dissent on the Second Amendment merits. This looks to us as if he is trying to protect the Chief Justice from being the fifth vote, and the sole “conservative,” providing a liberal victory while making clear he’s still a solid vote himself for gun rights. The phrase for this is too clever by half.

Justice Kavanaugh may agree with the Chief that the Court needs to avoid political controversies, especially with Democrats threatening to pack the Court if they win the White House and Senate in November. But the Court’s timidity on gun rights amid Senate threats means that liberal and media intimidation will escalate. The Court hasn’t taken a Second Amendment case in a decade, even as cities and states erode its landmark Heller decision bit by bit. The Court is sending a signal that the Second Amendment is the exception in the Bill of Rights, a second-class freedom.

“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” Justice Alito warns. He’s right but too polite.

The Chief Justice is carving out a reputation as a highly political Justice whose views on the law can be coerced with threats to the Court’s “independence.” The danger for the Court is that, in bending to these threats, the Chief is compromising the very independence he claims to want to protect.

The time for politeness has ended.  The progs declared war long ago, and what’s left of believers in liberty is drinking tea in the front room playing parlor games and making sure their suits don’t get soiled.

As well all expected.

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped issuing a major ruling on a New York handgun law, a blow to gun rights advocates and the Trump administration, who had hoped the conservative majority would expand gun rights as early as this term.

TTAG.

The defendants in Parsons v. Colt et al. asked a federal district court to dismiss the lawsuit. On April 10, 2020, US District Court judge Andrew P. Gordon (Obama appointee) refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim. The case will now move forward in Nevada state courts.

Gordon used a set of lies regarding the design and history of the AR platform to rationalize his finding that the manufacturers somehow knew they were making arms that could easily be converted to machineguns, despite the fact that even the ATF claimed otherwise, until they changed their pseudo-minds in late 2017 (and didn’t make it retroactively official until 2019).

Carl then cites from the ruling, made by an Obama-appointed judge.

26 U.S.C. § 5845. Nevada’s definition of “machine gun” mirrors the federal definition. NRS § 202.253. The ATF has defined “designed to shoot” to include “those weapons which have not previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts.” ATF Ruling 82-2.

I read the judgment.  It’s as bad as Carl is suggesting in one way, but not in another.  First, the good news.  This isn’t a ruling that is determinative for Nevada.  He is only referring this to the Nevada supreme court.  See the final two pages of the ruling.

Now for the bad news.  If this indeed goes against the plaintiffs, that’s big trouble.  It might not be so in states other than Nevada (can you imagine this happening in Idaho or Texas?), but this is a wrongful death lawsuit, and it could cost big.

The suit is against Daniel Defense (and other manufacturers) and Sportsman’s Warehouse.  What happens now if you want to buy a Daniel Defense rifle?

The cost goes up due to [a] legal expenses, and [b] awards.  That’s the whole intent behind this.

Ammoland.

The court granted the City’s petition. The court acknowledged that Lori could legally “walk . . . into any gun store and qualify to buy a handgun . . . and put [it] in that gun safe.” But it held that the City was nevertheless authorized to take the “low hanging fruit” of the guns the Rodriguezes already owned, irrespective of Lori’s ability to buy more, because of the danger that Edward presented. Stating that it was not “ignoring [Lori’s] Constitutional Rights,” the court concluded that it was not appropriate to return the firearms given the public safety concerns at stake.

Ah, those “low hanging fruit” guns.

The only thing low hanging about this is the moral compass of the fruits and nuts who made this decision.

Ammoland.

This is why HR 6110, The Defective Firearms Protection Act, introduced by Representative Debbie Dingell, should be a very big deal. This very short bill, two pages long in its official form. It has two very short sections and counting the labeling of the section titles, it is all of 79 words long.

But these 79 words mark a monumental shift in power from elected officials that the American people can hold accountable to the administrative state, with grave implications for the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s not what the law puts in place, it’s the restriction that it lifts which Second Amendment supporters should worry about.

Under 15 USC 2052, firearms of all types are not considered consumer products, and under 15 USC 2079, firearms are generally excluded from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

According to a release from Representative Dingell’s office, HR 6110 will give the Consumer Product Safety Commission power over our Second Amendment rights.

“Because the Consumer Product Safety Commission lacks the authority to recall firearms, faulty guns remain on the market and pose a risk to public and household safety,” said Dingell in the release. She went on to press the nonsense claim that more is done to regulate products like highchairs and bicycles than firearms.

[ … ]

Imagine the CPSC telling Rock River Arms to stop making all of their modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms. The company would have to comply or face civil and criminal penalties. Litigation would also be much more difficult that in challenging a law.

I know folks at RRA and I don’t want them or anyone to have to go through this.  The controllers never sleep.  We can’t either.  Oppose it by all means necessary.