Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

“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.

David Codrea.

“The Wake County Range (the Firearms Education and Training Center), built for use by Wake County citizens is now being closed to the public, effective January 15, 2020,” Grassroots North Carolina alerted its members Friday. “This comes as a huge surprise as Sheriff Baker, who manages the range through contractors he hires, gave no advanced warning of this decision. There was no public discussion, no prior announcement—not a thing.”

Per The News & Observer, “The Wake County Sheriff’s Office ended its contract with Range Safety Management (RSM) LLC.” The sheriff’s state reasoning, a “lack of profitability and a review that fees and funds collected … were not accounted for accurately,” speaks more to mismanagement than anything else. If there are issues, why is it not in the public interest to openly discuss them and to consider temporary and long-term solutions?

The county commission’s response was initially tepid and noncommittal, even though GRNC asserted a letter it issued “makes it clear that they were not involved in the Sheriff’s decision, and suggested his decision may have been rash.” WRAL.com now reports “County Manager David Ellis informed the sheriff that the county would take over control of the facility.” What Ellis means by “find[ing] a balance between public and law enforcement use” remains to be defined.

It is Wake County, after all, one of the two centers of progressive thought in North Carolina (Charlotte being the other one).  Without Wake and Mecklenburg counties, North Carolina would be solidly red and an easy win for conservative and libertarian candidates.

But this one hits hard, as it was originally chartered for public use.  Now, the Sheriff has claimed sole ownership and use of it.

Brock Townsend has written a letter to the Wake County Commissioners.

The citizenry must be allowed access their own facility, which was originally chartered for public use. I’m demanding that this be rectified as soon as possible, and that a full explanation of how this happened in the first place be provided.

I will be monitoring your actions on this important matter through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.

So this is how it’s going to be.  Attacks against our God-given rights nationally and locally, with a new attack virtually every breath we take.

Very well.  Queue up the war.  Politicians and peace officers serve at the behest of the people, and the people can throw them out.  Or do you not see yourself as a peace officer, Sheriff Baker?  Let’s start there.  Are you a constitutional Sheriff and a peace officer, or are you a law enforcement officer?  Your answer to that question will tell us everything we need to know about you.

Which is it?  We’re waiting.

Epoch Times.

A coalition of 21 state attorneys general is asking the Supreme Court to strike down a Maryland law that denies concealed carry permits unless applicants can convince local officials they have a “good and substantial reason” to be granted one by local authorities.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, and the other state officials filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court Dec. 18 in a case cited as Malpasso v. Pallozzi. Morrisey and the others want to expand the scope of protection afforded to gun-ownership rights after the high court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2010), that the right to possess a firearm is an individual right, and in McDonald v. Chicago (2012), that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” applies to the states.

This is a good case in light of the machinations New York just went through to avoid Supreme Court review.  This is an excellent case.

Here’s a prediction.  Roberts will prevent this from ever reaching the SCOTUS.  Good job, W.  That’s a valueless man you’ve got there, just like you.

So says Chelsea Parsons, vice president for Gun Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress in Washington.

Any resolution enacted by a local governing body that attempts to pick and choose which state laws apply in a particular jurisdiction is at best a symbolic gesture akin to a protest sign. At worst, these resolutions undermine duly enacted state laws and jeopardize public safety.

Notice the hysterical verbiage.  I still think the controllers are deeply conflicted.  On the one hand, they are null and void, to no effect, irrelevant, will do nothing at all to stop the implementation of the law, but are also chilling, dangerous, and will jeopardize public safety.

They are conflicted because they simply cannot imagine ordinary folks defying unconstitutional laws.  Creatures of the state, they are, and as long as a black robed tyrant declares an edict, or a bad law gets passed, they are perfectly willing to obey and demand fealty from others.

But ordinary folk often have morals and scruples that are not malleable to fad of the day, unlike this woman.  She is scared of what may come, as are the politicians in Virginia.  There is no other reason to get opinions issued by the state AG, write ridiculous missives like this one, and bow their chest out about using the national guard.

They ought to be scared.  Via WRSA, Aesop drops a wet blanket on their plans.

Tell us how many divisions the Nazis needed to garrison unarmed populations, and then tell us what the numbers would be against a population that bought more guns than the U.S., Russian, Chinese, and NATO armies have, combined, in just last year alone, and every year since they’ve kept stats?

If I’m a betting man, I like the odds in favor of Team Partisan.

It’s worse than that, really.  The statists cannot count on law enforcement or the NG.  This report today from Law Enforcement Today is a remarkable catalog of just where we were and where we’ve come.

Law Enforcement Today received many military member responses to this threat, saying they, too, would not enforce these proposed unconstitutional laws.  It boils down to this:  Politicians insisting on law enforcement and military to strip people of their rights for political gain are asking for civil war.

[ … ]

Law Enforcement Today has found itself unexpectedly in the middle of this battle – and we’re proudly on the side of Sheriff Jenkins.

[ … ]

That’s why we’ve covered the growing number of people who tell us they’re joining the militia.  Because they aren’t just the traditional “three percenters”.  They are cops – both active and retired.  They are veterans …

[ … ]

The first article we dropped about the growing militias was on Monday.  Within two hours, we were hit with several massive cyber attacks.  The same happened following articles on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

[ … ]

While Virginia is turning into a whole different kind of “battleground state”, we’re receiving messages from people in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, and California saying their own militias are exploding in numbers.

And at the same time, lawmakers are looking into what they can do to stop it… and they’re starting to receive media backing.

[ … ]

Thus, if anyone from the state tries to remove the Sheriff from their elected office because they refuse to enforce unjust laws, those state officials will be faced with a lawful militia composed of citizens within the state.

The county is taking their militia element very seriously as the new ordinance calls for concealed weapons training for any resident of the county that can lawfully own a gun.

There is much more at the link.  Read it all.  This is exactly what scares the controllers, and there is valid reason for that fear.

In spite of the fact that the controllers are calling for CWII, they persist, and yet will be surprised and appalled at the war they have fomented.

But if there is to be war because they demand that there be so, then the warriors must be resolved, well armed and prepared.

To the controllers: there is still time to back out of this, if you’re smart.  You will not win this, and it will be awful.

Via Wirecutter.

Just like in Nazi Germany in the Hitler youth and in communist Soviet Union under the Bolsheviks.

This is a dated video, but it goes to show exactly the thinking of the controllers even a few years ago.  It hasn’t gotten better since then.