Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

HB 567:

Indoor shooting ranges; prohibited in buildings not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government; exceptions; civil penalty. Prohibits the operation of an indoor shooting range, defined in the bill, in any building not owned or leased by the Commonwealth or federal government unless (i) fewer than 50 employees work in the building or (ii) (a) at least 90 percent of the users of the indoor shooting range are law-enforcement officers or federal law-enforcement officers, (b) the indoor shooting range maintains a log of each user’s name, phone number, address, and the law-enforcement agency where such user is employed, and (c) the indoor shooting range verifies each user’s identity and address by requiring all users to present a government-issued photo-identification card. The bill provides that any person that violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $100,000 for the initial violation and $5,000 per day for each day of violation thereafter.

This is a strange one.  It begins quite draconian, and then stipulates that it doesn’t apply to buildings where fewer than 50 employees work.

Why the cutoff of 50?  I’m not familiar with indoor shooting ranges in Virginia.  Are there any which employs over 50 people?  And why would any of this matter?  What do they think they gain with this legislation?

I’m not sure to whom this would apply?  Or am I misreading this?  Also, could it be that a simple change in the future (e.g., strikethrough of the number 50) might be the next step?

Via David Codrea, this interesting bit of information about one Virginia politician.

This is telling, but not what caught my eye.  To me this quote is more important.

The behavior of the 2A supporters at the forum was childish and boorish … they were disturbing and indicative of mental health issues among many 2A supporters.”

I’ve complained before about incorrect use of the phrase “begging the question.”  Many people use it in the context of a question that necessarily comes to mind given that something else has been said.

That’s not right.  Don’t use the expression that way.  Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy, to wit, presupposing the consequent.

In this case, he begs the question.  He’s in the position is explaining that many 2A supporters have mental health issues, and if someone were to ask him what constitutes a mental health issue, he would have to say, “Why, there it is, right there.  Unyielding support for the 2A.”

You see, they want to confiscate weapons from people who have mental health issues, and to them, the mere act of wanting a firearm in the first place is a sign of mental health issues.

Understand?

Reason.

The Colorado legislature’s official fiscal analysis of that state’s new “red flag” law, which took effect this week, projects that police and “family or household members” will use it to seek gun confiscation orders against people they portray as threats to themselves or others about 170 times a year. The analysis also assumes that 95 percent of those petitions will be granted, which is not far-fetched given Florida’s experience with such orders.

Such a high approval rate reflects the due process problems with red flag laws, which take away people’s Second Amendment rights for a year or more based on vague standards and dubious evidence that judges are not inclined to question because they worry about the potentially deadly consequences of rejecting petitions. But there are a couple of reasons to think Colorado’s approval rate may not be quite as high as Florida’s.

The land of pre-crime requires that you be squared away in your family life.  Seriously.  The best way to avoid crap like this is to never call the police about anything, especially any family disputes or firearms.

Men, be leaders.  Spiritual leaders, physical leaders, providers and protectors.  The costs of not being so is higher today than ever before.

NC Renegade.

My neighbors said that the newspapers had been printing false information on town hall meetings. Said that votes were not going to be taking place when in fact they did. Seems the powers that be didn’t want the people coming to express their opinions. Neighbors also stated that buses have already been chartered for taking people to the capitol on the 20th. They are expecting thousands from their area to travel.

Ammo is being purchased as quickly as possible. The sound of Gunfire could be heard throughout the hills during the day.

Read the rest here.  He says “false” information.  I have no doubt.  It just isn’t that difficult for journalists to round up accurate information.

“These people are crazy”, “Yea, they’re like little kids. As long as we don’t reply we’ll get through this.”

Some listeners are claiming that it’s impossible to hear it accurately.  I could, especially with the help of the comments which link this cleaned up version.  The contact information for this group of vipers is here.

The Daily Wire.

Gun retailers in Virginia say they’re seeing sales of weapons and ammunition skyrocket as the now fully Democratic Virginia legislature moves closer to passing strict gun control within the state — including a provision that allows the state government to confiscate so-called “assault weapons” if citizens who own them don’t register the weapons.

The Washington Examiner reports that at least one gun retailer has seen sales rise more than 200% year over year. Cash sales are way up, especially amid news that Democrats in Virginia and in Congress want to use credit card information to track gun purchases.

“This is the largest Christmas and November, December that we’ve had, basically, since Trump has come on board. The only other person that was a better salesman right now is when we had President Obama,” one retailer told the Examiner.

[ … ]

Democrats in Virginia say they’re paving the way for a national gun control program, and have proposed a number of possible restrictions, including a complete ban on assault rifles, backed up by the threat of confiscation. The Examiner adds that Democrats are also pursuing  “restrictions on magazine capacity, universal background checks, and restrictions to one gun a month purchases.”

This is a continuation of the trend we already noted.  Meanwhile, governor Ralph “Kill the babies give me all your guns” Northam continues Virginia careening down the road to possible civil war.

“We see in the governor’s proposed budget that he wants $4 million and 18 new law-enforcement positions to enforce a ban on commonly-owned firearms,” said Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America senior vice president.

“Gun owners want to know: Is this money going to be used for the gun confiscation?” he added.

[ … ]

At today’s budget hearings, the groups have urged their members to ask questions about Northam’s budget that includes $4.8 million for an 18-person force to implement his proposed assault weapons ban.

Anyone who joins that 10-person force is a fool, and it isn’t clear that 18,000 would be enough.  That’s all assuming that Virginians are serious about this thing.  As I have said before, this “cannot be an empty warning.  If it is, no one should be issuing the warning at all.  If the next step is to turn to the black-robed tyrants, you will lose …

So-called “assault weapons” bans are in place in New York and Connecticut and have been for some time.  No state or federal court has ever struck them down.  If you trust your future to the tyrants, you’ll be disappointed.  When Sheriffs say they will deputize a posse, they must mean it.  State agents will have to be put in county prisons.  Road blocks will have to be set up.  Show downs will occur, and they’ll be armed show downs.  Teams of agents will have to refuse to do the bidding of the state tyrants for fear of the consequences.  The same goes for the national guard troops.”

I’m certain that the baby-killing governor is certain that he intends to do all of this.  What I’m uncertain of at the moment is whether Virginians intend to go down peacefully.  There is a huge difference between active resistance and hiding weapons in the back yard, never again being able to go to the shooting range for practice, waiting for that time when the .gov finds you out, and hoping for leniency.

Examiner.

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie thinks some local law enforcement leaders will be willing to go to jail rather than comply with state gun control laws they deem unconstitutional.

“Attended my first 2A sanctuary meeting today in Lewis County (where I live). Standing room only. Friends and neighbors spoke passionately and articulately. County officials unanimously passed a resolution,” Massie tweeted on Dec. 30. “This grassroots movement feels even stronger than the Tea Party in 2010.”

[ … ]

Massie cited Weld County, Colorado Sheriff Steve Reams, a critic of the state’s “red flag” law, who has offered to put himself in his own jail rather than enforce the state law.

“His county government has already voted to fund his legal fees should he end up in a protracted legal battle that might go all the way” to the Supreme Court, Massie told the Washington Examiner.

“And so that’s one of the things that when you boil it all down and say, ‘What does the sanctuary county movement mean?’” Massie said. “So, what it could mean is that county governments decide to use taxpayer dollars, with the blessing of the taxpayers in those counties, to support the sheriffs in their court battles.”

Massie compared the potential circumstances to the jailing of Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis by a judge when she refused to sign same-sex marriage certificates in 2015.

“A lot of people didn’t think she was willing to do this, but she resisted a judge’s order to issue marriage licenses with her name on it, and she refused to do it, and he found her in contempt and threw her in jail without a jury trial,” Massie said.

“So, she was basically a political prisoner,” Massie said. “She stayed in jail until it became a national issue.”

That is a horrible analogy.  She lost her legal battle, cost the state a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees, and then lost her bid for reelection.

I do like Thomas Massie, but listen to me sir.  This isn’t anything at all like Kim Davis.  That time has come and gone.  The ballot box is corrupted, the voice box is being used now, and the warning to the Virginia legislators is to use the cartridge box next.

That cannot be an empty warning.  If it is, no one should be issuing the warning at all.  If the next step is to turn to the black-robed tyrants, you will lose, just like Ms. Davis.  So-called “assault weapons” bans are in place in New York and Connecticut and have been for some time.  No state or federal court has ever struck them down.

If you trust your future to the tyrants, you’ll be disappointed.  When Sheriffs say they will deputize a posse, they must mean it.  State agents will have to be put in county prisons.  Road blocks will have to be set up.  Show downs will occur, and they’ll be armed show downs.  Teams of agents will have to refuse to do the bidding of the state tyrants for fear of the consequences.  The same goes for the national guard troops.

I’m not getting the vibe that the participants understand all of this.  I’m virtually certain the Sheriffs don’t.

AP:

… in all of history there has never been a civil war where, at the outset of hostilities, the resisting indigenous population was armed to the teeth with rifles capable of making 500 to 1,000 yard aimed precision shots. Never.

[ … ]

I’m simply not aware of any previous civil war where tens of thousands of aggrieved citizens began the struggle armed with rifles capable of making 500 yard and greater precision shots. This is an equation changer. Gun raids will not be possible for long if law enforcement convoys are taken under accurate fire en-route to and from gun confiscation operations, and roadside car-search checkpoint duty becomes a suicide mission. Never forget what happened to the British redcoats on the famous 1775 gun confiscation raids at Concord and Lexington, and perhaps more importantly, remember what happened to them during their retreat to Boston.

I simply don’t know where this is all headed yet, and reiterate that it depends on the will of the people who have shown up to support the 2A sanctuary resolutions.  Where is the line in the sand?

One thing I’m sure of, however, is that the collectivists will not budge.  “Can a leopard change its spots?”  It will be decision time very soon.

New Jersey Law Journal.

Last year the Legislature enacted the Extreme Risk Protective Order Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-20 et seq. It authorizes the court to issue a temporary protective order, on the ex parte application of a law enforcement officer, family or household member, if the court finds “good cause to believe that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing bodily injury to the respondent or other by having custody or control of … a firearm.” The temporary order bars the respondent from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition until further order of the court. In deciding whether to issue a temporary protective order, the court is directed to consider eight factors, among which are the respondent’s “history of threats or acts of violence.”

In November 2019, the Gloucester Township Municipal Court issued a temporary protective order seizing the firearms of David Greco, 51, a resident of the township. It found good cause because FBI monitoring showed that Greco has posted extensively on social media in favor of violence against Jews, he had allegedly been in contact with the man who shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue, and he had a prior conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon.

Greco didn’t pursue the act’s remedy of a post-seizure plenary hearing within 10 days of a temporary order. Instead, he filed a § 1983 action against Attorney General Grewal and the Camden County prosecutor in federal district court, alleging that the statute i) violates the Fourth Amendment by not requiring proof of probable cause, ii) violates his Second Amendment right to possess weapons, iii) violates his First Amendment right of political expression, and iv) violates his Due Process rights. The suit requests a statewide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the act. The state opposed the motion, primarily on abstention grounds and secondarily on the ground that its interest in preventing an imminent threat to public safety overrides Greco’s Second Amendment right to keep firearms for personal defense in his home. The motion was heard in late November and remains pending. We think it likely that the district court will dismiss under the Younger abstention because Greco can assert his federal constitutional claims as the defendant in the pending state court proceeding. Those claims are significant.

[ … ]

The temporary protective order against Greco does not find as fact that he was imminently about to commit an act of violence against Jews or anyone else. That raises serious concern under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that set the First Amendment parameters for when the state could punish political speech. In a case involving a Ku Klux Klan leader, the court held that the state could not punish the advocacy of illegal political violence unless the advocacy i) was directed to incite or produce imminent lawless violence and ii) is likely to incite or produce it. Under Brandenburg the First Amendment allows a speaker to advocate in principle a violent revolution or the expulsion or murder of a racial or religious group someday, as long as it is not coupled with the intended likelihood of immediate action.

As long as Brandenburg remains the law, the “good cause” standard of the act is subject to the requirement that the speaker intend imminent violence and is likely to produce it. Those twin inferences of intent and probability can’t simply be drawn from expressions of hatred or of admiration for those who have already committed illegal violence. Unlike the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which requires evidence that the defendant has already committed one act of domestic violence, the ERPO Act is purely predictive. We do not believe that Brandenburg allows the prediction to be made simply based on the expression of opinion that illegal political violence against Jews, unbelievers, homosexuals or any other hated group ought to be committed. That standard is substantially over-inclusive. For every prospective shooter or bomber, there are probably tens of thousands of angry but impotent bigots who sympathize and vent their anger and hatred online but will never muster the courage or discipline to act.

That may be true, but of course, that’s the wrong reason to oppose this statute.  The right reason is that it’s within God’s purview to punish evil-thinkers, not man’s, however evil-thinking is defined.  Evil-thinking is one thing to one man, another thing to another.  Only God’s law is the measure of what’s good and righteous.

What the author’s say about the second amendment is worth reading.

We do not think the Second Amendment is a significant barrier to preemptive action if the predictive evidence is clear enough. Under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the only recognized individual Second Amendment right is to possess firearms for last ditch defense in the home. Heller essentially incorporates the common law “castle doctrine” that Lord Coke declared in Semayne’s Case. Semayne’s Case limited the castle doctrine to the home and expressly excluded “the market or elsewhere.” Heller and its progeny have been careful to point out that the Second Amendment does not restrict the state’s power to regulate public order outside the home, including the carrying of arms by individuals. And no federal court has ever held that the Second Amendment confers a right to take or threaten armed political action. If it is proven by sufficient evidence that a defendant presents a clear threat of armed violence in the community, nothing in the Second Amendment, as currently interpreted by the courts, would prevent disarming him.

And thus we continue unabated down the road of appeals courts, lawyers, law reviews and law schools ignoring the strength of Heller and focusing on its weaknesses.  I have forever said that Heller was a weak decision, perhaps because it’s the best Scalia could have hoped for with the makeup of the majority in the decision.  Any further steps might have been a bridge too far.

But the Supreme tyrants have run as fast as possible from any more decisions on second amendment rights, and it remains to be seen whether the SCOTUS decision in Heller itself eventually becomes virtually irrelevant in light of lower court rulings.

No one will protect your God-given rights except you.  Know, however, that the Almighty will be your advocate on judgment day.

News from Virginia.

As a symbolic opposition to the bills, more than 100 Virginia localities have become Second Amendment sanctuaries.

Meanwhile, gun sales have shot up 35 to 45 percent at one gun store in Abingdon.

Employee Josh Petry said Christmas is usually a busy time of year, but he has noticed extra concern among some customers.

“I think people are a little scared and nervous of what the governor is proposing and some of the legislation that’s already been filed early,” said Petry.

“The new proposed gun laws have really awakened a lot of people who didn’t really play attention to politics before,” Blevins added.

“Symbolic opposition.”

So here’s a question for the controllers.  If this “opposition” is merely symbolic, and if they plan on turning their guns in to governor Ralph “Kill the babies give me all your guns” Northam, why would they be spending their hard-earned money on buying more guns?

Ponder that.

I told you when speaking to The Washington Post editorial board.  “It isn’t clear what sort of mental gymnastics would make the editorial board believe that folks in Abingdon, Damascus, or Franklin County would comply with any new firearms laws.”

Because I know the folks around Abingdon and Damascus, and the controllers don’t.