Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

At this hour, there is a USAF U-28A aircraft circling the Capitol.

Make of it what you will.  I know what I think.

From reddit/firearms, this picture of the Virginia capitol.

I don’t believe in caging men.  I’ve said it before in the context of imprisonment.  I don’t believe in incarceration and rehabilitation, nor prison camps of any sort.

If a man has committed a crime worthy of death (e.g., rape, murder or kidnapping), then put him to death.  If he has stolen from you, he becomes your slave until the debt is paid.  There is no such thing as a “debt to society.”  Debts are to individuals, not groups.  That’s the Biblical model.  There isn’t a model better than that.

What the democrats are doing in Virginia is caging men, just like incarceration.  Democrats believe in caging men.  And most republicans too.

Washington Examiner.

The majority-Democrat state Senate passed legislation that would restrict monthly gun purchases, expand background checks on firearms, and allow localities to ban guns in certain designated areas.

Senate Bill 69 amends Virginia law to restrict citizens’ ability to purchase more than one handgun per month, Senate Bill 70 requires mandatory background checks for all private sales of guns, and Senate Bill 35 requires localities to ban guns at public events.

Although Democratic Sen. John Edwards struck the assembly’s most controversial legislation, Senate Bill 16, which would have prohibited the sale, possession, or transfer of an assault rifle, many Republicans believe the House of Delegates will pass the similarly worded House Bill 961, which bans the purchase or possession of assault rifles in Virginia.

Soon to be signed into law, I’m sure.  Limits on gun purchases, universal background checks, and laws to disarm the public at certain events and locations.

Next up – bans on AR-15s.

Via David Codrea, the VDCL sued the governor Ralphie “Kill babies and give me all your guns” Northam over his ban on guns in the state capital.

VCDL Sue VA Governor over Lobby Day Gun Ban Springfield, VA – In response to Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s gun ban before Lobby Day, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) announce the filing of an emergency injunction to overturn the governor’s illegal ban. Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, stated the following: “Governor Northam is behaving like the royal governors who long preceded him. He has arrogantly and brazenly tried to restrict the rights protected to Virginians by the First and Second Amendments. “For this reason, Gun Owners of America is joining VCDL in asking the courts to issue an emergency injunction forbidding the enforcement of the Governor’s unlawful ban. The Lobby Day rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident. The only difference this year is that, in response to the Democrats’ attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment, a much larger crowd is expected. “GOA is arguing that the Governor’s actions violate the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions, as well as, a 2012 state law which strictly limits the governor’s ability to ban guns in a state of emergency.”

But it didn’t work.

A Virginia judge has ruled in support of a state of emergency Gov. Ralph Northam (D) put in place on the state capitol Wednesday to temporarily ban guns ahead of a rally scheduled for Monday.

Northam declared a state of emergency citing “credible intelligence from our law enforcement agencies of threats of violence.”

What?  You didn’t really expect a black-robed tyrant to be true to your God-given rights, did you?

So now you’re cordially invited (or not) into a city where you know they’re busing Antifa thugs in, and yet you can only come if you’re disarmed.

Remember what I’ve said about being in confined spaces and around crowds.  And remember what I recommended that you being doing instead of this.

I’m not a prophet, so I can only ponder the good and bad that may come from all of this and try to recommend wisely.

News from Virginia.

PORTSMOUTH, Va. (WAVY) — Portsmouth is one of the latest localities to send a message to lawmakers in Richmond in support of Second Amendment rights.

City Council voted 4-3 in favor of passing a resolution of support of the Second Amendment resolution, which declares Portsmouth a “Second Amendment Constitutional City.”

Mayor John Rowe, Vice Mayor Lisa Lucas-Burke and council member Shannon Glover voted in opposition. Rowe said he believes in sensible gun legislation.

The meeting started at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chamber and went past 11 p.m.

Speakers addressed city leaders for several hours. The council chamber was packed full, with people watching on monitors and more downstairs on the first floor watching.

But one of the most talked-about moments in Tuesday’s meeting: Councilman Nathan Clark showed up wearing an AR-15 rifle.

The councilman said he did this to make a statement about his stance on the proposed gun laws. In a letter to citizens, he said the new legislation is ludicrous and he says he plans to defend the oath to the Constitution that he swore to as a law enforcement officer.

“The newly proposed gun legislation for the state of Virginia is ludicrous,” the letter reads. “The legislation will make criminals of lawful citizens and gun owners. Again, I am a law enforcement officer, and if this legislation is passed, I will also be made a criminal.

“Taking away the rights of our citizens not only puts them in greater danger, but the act is unconstitutional. Criminals have always and will always break the law. We must punish the existing criminals for their actions, and not take away the means of defense from law-abiding citizens.”

So the voters now have three people who need to be booted to the curb.  One good thing about all of this is that the controllers have to self-identify.

This is a remarkable document, a complete slapdown of the controllers.  I’m surprised it happened where it did (California).  Here’s an excerpt.

Everytown contends that its brief will provide the Court with the historical backdrop necessary to evaluate the Second Amendment challenges to firearms regulations. Id. at 3. However, this is not a perspective beyond what Defendant’s attorneys could provide on their own. Moreover, like Giffords Law Center, Everytown’s partisanship is apparent.  The Court finds that the amicus brief may prejudice Plaintiffs on the trial level because the brief allows Defendant to have a proverbial “another bite of the apple” due to partisan influence.

The document is linked here (2020-1-14-jones-order-denying-amicus-motions).

It comes mighty close.

Two identical bills that require universal background checks completed by federally licensed dealers for all firearm transfers have been introduced in the Missouri House by State Representative Ashley Bland Manlove and State Representative Greg Razer. House Bill 1529 and House Bill 1676 would even require two sportsmen to use a licensed firearm dealer and undergo the background-check process to temporarily loan a firearm for hunting purposes or even simply handing their gun to someone momentarily.

Although the language in this legislation would allow family firearm transfers without a licensed dealer, these bills fail to provide exceptions for loaning firearms to non-family members for hunting purposes or common acts of safety in the field and everyday use at the range. The language in HB 1529 and HB 1676 would make it unlawful for an experienced hunter to allow a friend to borrow a firearm for hunting or target shooting without first going through a licensed dealer, even if the owner of the firearm is present.

I don’t like the focus on hunting.  Hunting is a subset of activities that shouldn’t be subject to background checks.  Another might be loaning a firearm to a friend for purposes of self defense, or practice.  Or in other words, everything.  Because the RKBA is a God-given right.

Via reader Wynn A.

KIRO Radio.

If you are a commercial pilot or general contractor likely you understand the value of licensing; So why not license gun owners?

Tell me I’m wrong.

Okay.  You’re wrong.  The right of self defense is not just a right, but a duty, and that means self defense against both individuals and tyranny.

Gun rights people — same as gun control supporters — talk a good game about background checks, mental health, warning signs, red flags. But existing laws and loopholes prevent effective, universal screening.

And before we argue that the Second Amendment means that no restriction should be put on gun ownership, we already place limit on every constitutional amendment, including the Second.  And the argument that it would not affect criminals is true for every new criminal law – until someone gets arrest for violating it.

In fact, I like licensing so much I’d be willing to toss out any bans on so-called assault weapons or ammunition restrictions. Heck, I’d be fine with no purchase restrictions on any firearms sold today in this country in exchange for licensing.

Well bless your heart.  Are you offering a compromise?  No one on your side has ever done that before.  Why, shazam.  This is the very first time, don’t ya’ know.

The fact that we might place restrictions on rights is no argument that it is righteous and acceptable to put those restrictions in place.  That’s argument de facto, which is a formal logical fallacy.

If the real problem is, as I am often told, “it’s the person not the gun,” then let’s put our money where our thoughts and prayers are and license the person. Everybody wants to lionize that good guy with a gun; I simply want to license him – or her – as well.

I don’t care what you’ve been told.  And as for licensing people instead of weapons, we’ve known all along that’s what your ilk wanted to do.  It’s the same thing Adolf Hitler did.  You can check here, or watch this.

Tell me I’m wrong.

Okay.  You’re wrong.  Rights come from the Almighty, it is He alone who is the only sovereign, and man doesn’t get to give or take rights.  Rights are only recognized, not given, by anyone but God.  And we won’t be giving up our solemn duties to assuage anyone’s irrational fears, most especially you.

Via WiscoDave, this misleading piece from Breitbart.

Virginia Democrats withdrew an AR-15 confiscation bill Monday after thousands of NRA members showed up to oppose new gun controls.

The NRA asked members to flood the January 13, 2020, Virginia Senate meetings and ensure pro-Second Amendment voices drowned out those calling for gun control.

The Washington Free Beacon reports the presence of thousands of NRA members “appeared to have an impact.” Democrats withdrew a bill aimed at AR-15 confiscation and moderated other gun control proposals.

But NRA-ILA Virginia state director Daniel Spiker made clear the changes, though good, were not enough.

He said, “While there were some improvements to some of these bills, overall, it’s still bad legislation. Putting in more regulations and making it more onerous on the law-abiding citizens of Virginia is not something we stand for.”

Richard Cosner, a Chester, Virginia, preacher, was present to oppose new gun controls.

He pointed out attempts to legislate gun control serve as a way to usurp the Constitution:  “The Constitution is specific; it ‘shall not be infringed.’ If somebody wants to restrict those rights then they need to follow it by altering the Constitution, not by putting in place legislation that is in conflict with the Constitution.”

This lede is very misleading.  That’s not what happened at all, and the Virginia lawmakers couldn’t care less what the NRA or its members think.

They’re dropping redundant bills and focusing on getting their preferred bills out of committee.  There will still be a universal background check.  There will still be an AWB.  There will still be the restrictions on shooting ranges.  There will still be magazine capacity limits.  We could go on.

An earlier version of the article had this.

Lawmakers will continue to work on the bills passed today and consider other gun-control bills. Those include a House of Delegates bill that would ban new sales of AR-15s, force gun owners to register AR-15s, and outlaw possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Here’s a note to writers: please don’t be misleading.

News from New Zealand.

I opened the door to see a number of police officers outside. They served me with a search warrant under Section 6 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Half a dozen armed police officers swarmed in the front door (holstered sidearms only) as several more ran around the sides of the house. They later called for more backup as the house was larger than your average state-house drug lab. I got the impression that they’d never had to raid a middle-class suburban house like mine before. Everyone on the property was detained, read their rights, and questioned separately. I opted to call a lawyer who advised me to refuse to answer any questions.

The warrant claimed they had reason to believe I was in possession of a prohibited magazine fitted to a “.22RL lever-action rifle. Blued metal, brown wooden stock.” The officer told me I had posted about it online, which I had—in my public written submission against the Firearms Amendment Act passed last year. That submission was shared on several blogs and social media. I had used the firearm as an example to prove the legislation was not targeting “military-style assault weapons” as the media, prime minister, and her cabinet repeated ad nauseum. The vast majority of firearms affected by the legislation were just like mine.

I thought nothing more of my little example to the select committee. It was no longer in my possession when the police raided my house. They departed empty-handed after turning the place inside out for ninety minutes and left me with my firearms and a visibly shaken wife who broke down in tears. Thankfully, the kids didn’t quite get what was going on—but I realised after that they had gone to bed without icecream.

I’ve been vocal about the amnesty being a disaster, and the police were rather open about the failure of the whole process. Maybe if they stopped raiding innocent people’s houses there might have been some more good will? They implied that they’d keep having to raid the houses of people I knew until the firearm turned up. This is for an A-Category firearm, which I have no reason to believe is fitted with a prohibited magazine! Are these the kind of intimidation tactics now the norm in New Zealand? Are we going to accept this in a first-world democracy?

This is for a lever-action .22LR that’s designed to hit paper or be used to hunt bunnies. What happened to going after the “weapons designed to kill people” as the police minister Stuart Nash has claimed?

The implications of this are rather stunning. I took the photo and publicised the details about this firearm as part of the select committee process. This good-faith evidence was used by the police as a justification for their raid. Do we now live in a country where public evidence given to a select committee will be used against you to suit the political purposes of the police?

You see, the problem here sir is that you are a peaceable, law abiding man.  That’s exactly who gun control laws target.  They intend it to be that way.They controllers don’t care about violent men, criminals or gangsters.

They fear you, a peaceable family man.  And yes, they even fear your lever action .22LR.  You can’t have anything.  The .gov has a monopoly on sanctioned violence, and thus you are left utterly powerless and impotent to protect your family against the gangsters, whether they work for the government or not.