Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

David Codrea.

“One of the Republican sponsors, California Rep. Doug LaMalfa, said the bill was needed because Americans are too lazy.”

That the collectivists have created mass dependency where many don’t have to work in exchange for votes seems not to be open for discussion. That’s too bad because by closing that topic down through smears and intimidation, thoughtful examination of how “beneficiaries” of wealth transfers are actually victimized over generations will never happen. That’s part of the plan.

What an insulting charge.  Apparently Doug isn’t inclined to mention the fact that it’s the lazy Americans who work hard to provide that free medical care for immigrants, and that free medical care is one of the primary reasons for that immigration.

You see, immigrants aren’t the only people who like that free medical care.  The corporations like it too because they don’t have to fund it.  Corporate welfare is popular among corporatists.  And immigrants.  And democrats.  And many republicans.

Just not working Americans.  Who aren’t lazy.

And yes, immigration does indeed advance the anti-gun agenda.  Grok this.  It doesn’t matter if they come legally or illegally.  If they get to vote, they vote in favor of socialist views, including gun control, by 70%-80%.

It’s a fact, and it is not in dispute.  That’s my problem with the notion of securing the border and then ensuring that they are all legal.  It still means a vote against your God-given rights.  It’s six one way, half a dozen the other, and it all adds up to problems in the future.

The Daily Signal.

Nov. 2, Everett, Washington: A concealed-carry permit holder intervened to stop a mentally disturbed man who was endangering drivers by throwing chunks of concrete and metal pipes at cars passing by on the interstate.

Nov. 5, Genesee County, New York: A 76-year-old man used his shotgun to fend off an armed home intruder, potentially saving both his life and the life of his wife.

Nov. 7, Glen Burnie, Maryland: A man was feeding chickens in his yard when his bulldog began frantically barking, and he heard commotion from inside his home. He walked inside to find two acquaintances had broken in and, armed with a gun and a knife, were assaulting his girlfriend. The man grabbed an antique shotgun that he kept loaded “in case anything ever happens,” and fired at the attackers, injuring one and causing the other to run away.

Nov. 10, Atascocita, Texas: A group of four masked would-be robbers charged into a jewelry store and began using hammers to smash into glass cases and grab expensive items. The storeowner saw the thieves from behind the one-way mirror in his office, grabbed his gun, and fired several rounds that wounded two thieves and sent all of them running.

Nov. 14, Port Charlotte, Florida: A disabled New York City firefighter recovering from serious injuries relied on his handgun for protection against a masked woman who broke into his home and assaulted him.

Nov. 17, Burlington, North Carolina: A homeowner used his shotgun to defend himself against an ax-wielding man who tried to break into his home through a back door.

Nov. 21, Benton Harbor, Michigan: Two armed intruders broke into an apartment and ordered the occupants—including three children—to “get down.” The apartment renter heard the commotion from a separate room, grabbed his rifle, and shot at the intruders, killing one and sending the other fleeing.

Nov. 25, Miami: When a man armed with an AK-47 attempted to rob a 60-year-old concealed-carry permit holder who was in his van, his son, and girlfriend, the permit holder drew his handgun and killed the would-be robber.

Nov. 27, Tulsa, Oklahoma: A man high on the drug PCP began stabbing his friend with a knife after the friend declined to give the man a ride. The friend, in fear for his life, pulled out his firearm and shot the man

Nov. 28, McCleary, Washington: A woman shot and killed her estranged husband after he broke into her house and attacked her and a friend with a knife.

Nov. 30, Ellenwood, Georgia: A deliveryman was unloading an order of bread at a Hardee’s fast-food restaurant when he saw several employees run out of the store in a panic, screaming for help. They told him that an armed robber had entered the store and was demanding cash while threatening other employees with a gun. The deliveryman grabbed his firearm from his truck and ran into the store. A gunbattle ensued, and the robber, who was shot several times, fled the scene.

Never forget that there are those who do not want you to be able to defend home and hearth.  They are divided into three camps.

The first is comprised by the controllers, who want a monopoly on violence.  The second is comprised of the do-gooders and the scared who want the state to have a monopoly on violence.  The third is a mildly religious group, ignorant in virtually every way, who think holding hands and singing Kumbaya is a cure for the sinful nature in mankind caused from federal headship.

These three groups would rather you be dead.

Incrementally, first with registration.  That’s how he did it, first under the pretext of finding criminals and public safety. If you want to skip everything else, fast forward to about 29 minutes in.  But everything she says is worth hearing.

Oh, and I don’t want to hear another word from the progs on how Hitler didn’t really go after guns.  Sure he did, incrementally.  And eventually, they had nothing with which to fight him.

So the next time I see one of those idiotic commentaries about Hitler not being a gun controller, I’m going to trot out this video.

Via David Codrea, Richard Black of the Virginia State Senate.

Liberals do not understand the National Guard.  These are citizen soldiers, and there are few effective tools for enforcing mass discipline. Democrats want the Virginia National Guard to enforce anti-gun laws by turning their rifles against the people.  The Guard will not do so.

Do Democrats really expect guardsmen to arrest recalcitrant deputy sheriffs and police officers?  Do they expect guardsmen to smash down doors and confiscate citizens’ guns? Fat chance.

Remember, the Virginia National Guard is sworn to uphold the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions.  And it is a complete defense if a soldier refuses to obey an unlawful or unconstitutional order.  Democrats are delusional if they think these guys will turn against their neighbors and violate their oaths.

Michael Bloomberg thinks he has crowned Ralph Northam the new King George. But Northam lacks the practical power to employ military force against Virginia.  The Guard is sensitive to the backlash they faced after firing on students at Kent State during the Vietnam War.  They won’t go through that ordeal again.

Here’s the way it works.  As long as the guard has the affection and public support of the people, they will follow orders.  But if Governor Northam turns armed troops against our citizens, the Guard will simply dissolve.

If Virginia’s citizen soldiers are ordered to turn their rifles on the people, they will refuse to do so.  The National Guard will not report for duty in order to march on the People. They will never turn their guns on law-abiding Virginians, no matter how much the Democrats want them to.

But they did during hurricane Katrina.  My FOIA request was was ignored (concerning who issued arming orders for the Louisiana National Guard), and as best as I’ve been able to determine, the National Guard accompanied the police when confiscations were conducted, the majority of the confiscations being done by mercenary cops (probably security consultants deputized on the spot).  But being there and doing nothing to stop it is as bad as doing it yourself.

He seems confident.  I’m not so confident.

Virginia House Bill No. 67 is very interesting.

HOUSE BILL NO. 67Offered January 8, 2020Prefiled December 5, 2019A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 40.1-55 through 40.1-57.1 and 40.1-58.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to strikes by certain government employees.

———-Patron– Carter———-Committee Referral Pending———-Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That §§ 40.1-55 through 40.1-57.1 and 40.1-58.1 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 40.1-55. Public safety employee striking terminates, and becomes temporarily ineligible for, public employment.

A. As used in this article, “public safety employee” means any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-500.

B. Any public safety employee of the Commonwealth, or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision thereof, or of any agency of any one of them, who, in concert with two or more other such employees, for the purpose of obstructing, impeding or suspending any activity or operation of his employing agency or any other governmental agency, strikes or willfully refuses to perform the duties of his employment shall, by such action, be deemed to have terminated his employment and shall thereafter be ineligible for employment in any position or capacity during the next twelve 12 months by the Commonwealth, or any county, city, town or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or by any department or agency of any of them.

§ 40.1-56. Department head, etc., to notify public safety employee of such termination, etc.

In any such case the head of any department of the state government, or the mayor of any city or town, or the chairman of the board of supervisors or other governing body of any county, or the head of any other such employing agency, in which such a public safety employee whose employment was terminated pursuant to § 40.1-55 was employed, shall forthwith notify such public safety employee of the fact of the termination of his employment and at the same time serve upon him in person or by registered mail a declaration of his ineligibility for reemployment as before provided. Such declaration shall state the fact upon which the asserted ineligibility is based.

§ 40.1-57. Appeal by public safety employee from declaration of ineligibility.

In the event that any such public safety employee whose employment was terminated pursuant to § 40.1-55 feels aggrieved by such declaration of ineligibility he may within ninety 90 days after the date thereof appeal to the circuit court of the county or the circuit court of the city in which he was employed by filing a petition therein for a review of the matters of law and fact involved in or pertinent to the declaration of ineligibility. A copy of the petition shall be served upon or sent by registered mail to the official signing the declaration, who may file an answer thereto within ten 10 days after receiving the same. The court or the judge thereof in vacation shall, as promptly as practicable, hear the appeal de novo and notify the employee and the signer of the declaration of ineligibility of the time and place of hearing. The court shall hear such testimony as may be adduced by the respective parties and render judgment in accordance with the law and the evidence. Such judgment shall be final.

§ 40.1-57.1. Appeal by employer for reemployment of terminated public safety employee.

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, in the event that the employer of an individual terminated under this article deems it necessary for the protection of the public welfare that such individual be reemployed within the twelve 12 months following his termination, the employer may, within ninety 90 days after the date of the declaration of ineligibility, appeal to the circuit court of the county or the circuit court of the city in which the individual was employed by filing a petition therein setting forth the reasons why the public welfare requires reemployment. A copy of the petition shall be served upon or sent by registered mail to the former public safety employee, who may file an answer therein ten 10 days after receiving the same. The court or the judge thereof in vacation shall notify the employer and former public safety employee of the time and place of the hearing on the appeal, such hearing to be de novo and to be held as promptly as possible. The court shall hear such testimony as may be adduced by the respective parties and render judgment in accordance with the law and the evidence. Such judgment shall be final.

§ 40.1-58.1. Application of article to public employers and public safety employees.

As used in this article, the words, “person,” “persons,” “employer,” “employees,” “union,” “labor union,” “association,” “organization,” and “corporation” shall include but not be limited to public employers, public employees, and any representative of public employees in this the Commonwealth. The application of this article to public employers, public employees, and their representatives shall not be construed as modifying in any way the application of § 40.1-55 to government public safety employees as defined in such section.

To begin with our analysis, let’s make it clear that this reenacts an existing law, while also amending that existing law.  And just to make it clear (it’s a shame we have to do this, but in order to placate other bloggers who might get their panties all wadded up), there are strike-throughs, italics and existing laws that need to be fisked in order to understand what they’re proposing.

If one reads the existing law in 40.1-55, it currently says the following.

Any employee of the Commonwealth, or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision thereof, or of any agency of any one of them, who, in concert with two or more other such employees, for the purpose of obstructing, impeding or suspending any activity or operation of his employing agency or any other governmental agency, strikes or willfully refuses to perform the duties of his employment shall … [ bold mine].

This is being amended and reenacted (as I’ve said before, reenacting a law is slightly different than simply amending it) to read as follows, citing from above.

A. As used in this article, “public safety employee” means any law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-500.

B. Any public safety employee of the Commonwealth, or of any county, city, town or other political subdivision thereof, or of any agency of any one of them, who, in concert with two or more other such employees …

So it would appear that whereas the law once would have addressed striking state road workers, for instance, it now completely ignores them and other state employees to include only LEOs.  It now says “Any employee,” and the proposal is for it to say “Any public safety employee.”  This is defined as follows.

“Agency” means the Department of State Police, the Division of Capitol Police, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Port Authority, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, or the Department of Motor Vehicles; or the political subdivision or the campus police department of any public institution of higher education of the Commonwealth employing the law-enforcement officer.

“Law-enforcement officer” means any person, other than a Chief of Police or the Superintendent of the Department of State Police, who, in his official capacity, is (i) authorized by law to make arrests and (ii) a nonprobationary officer of one of the following agencies:

a. The Department of State Police, the Division of Capitol Police, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Port Authority, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the Department of Conservation and Recreation;

b. The police department, bureau or force of any political subdivision or the campus police department of any public institution of higher education of the Commonwealth where such department, bureau or force has three or more law-enforcement officers; or

c. Any conservation police officer as defined in § 9.1-101.

For the purposes of this chapter, “law-enforcement officer” shall not include the sheriff’s department of any city or county.

This definition includes all state police, but excludes Sheriff’s departments and their deputies, perhaps because they know there is no legal basis for such an inclusion.

In any case, they appear to be frenetically searching for ways to say to their state police, “You’ll enforce our new laws, and if you don’t, we’ll take your job and future pensions away from you.”

As always, I could be wrong about this interpretation.  Feel free to weigh in with comments, but until persuaded otherwise, they appear by this bill to be attempting to criminalize failure of state police agents to implement new firearms regulation, up to and including confiscatory orders.  You try to get another job with “willful refusal to perform the duties of employment” on your resume.

In this case I’d be all too happy to have that conversation with prospective employers in Virginia.  Then again, men with families will be much less flexible.  Moral considerations will need to outweigh practical considerations, and I don’t hold out much hope of that calculus giving a good outcome with many LEOs who are agents of the state rather than deputies in counties.

If you have a different interpretation of this bill, weigh in with comments.

UPDATE: More On House Bill No. 67.

Brett MacDonald.

Millions of American tax dollars are being funneled into an organization that’s pushing for more gun control in the United States—and has been for some decades. The organization, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), ostensibly supports a cause near and dear to the hearts of almost every conservative American: supporting law enforcement officers throughout the country.

But, while the organization does some admirable work assisting the families of slain officers who have fallen in the line of duty, or attempting to mitigate the rising suicide rate among officers, much of PERF’s real attention is focused on destroying the Second Amendment rights of private citizens. They’re also keenly interested neutering the ability of law enforcement agencies throughout the country to effectively police and protect the communities under their wing. And that’s something that constitutionally minded Americans should be paying attention to. In short, your hard earned dollars are being taxed by the government and then funneled into an organization that desperately wants to disarm you and render impotent the brave men and women who serve your community.

The article is short on links, so I did a little research of my own, and ended up with this: “Key Findings and an Action Plan to Reduce Gun Violence.”  In it, you’ll find advocacy for the following.

• Universal background checks
• Red flag laws
• Limits on magazine capacity
• Banning of future sales of semi-automatic weapons to citizens.
• Bump stock ban.

In short, a laundry list suitable for a Michael Bloomberg wet dream of gun control, staffed by professional cops, and all underwritten and funded by your tax dollars.

Because the controllers are all smarter than you and know what’s best for you.  You are the raw material for their globalist, Utopian designs.

UPDATE: See also this link.

Via WRSA.

Necessary viewing.  I’m delighted to see Matt use our Ralph “Kill The Babies Give Me All Your Guns” meme, three times.

Matt is also concerned about a false flag event, as am I.  I’ve already told you, and have made it ready for linking and reference.

Via Virginia reporter Mack, this bit of interesting analysis.

This is all a pregnant bit of prose and requires some unpacking.  Richard Schragger, a law professor at the University of Virginia, has misled the reporter and the readers.  It’s all quite a bit more complicated than that, and he knows it.

His analysis is similar in import to the one today by a member of the Virginia legislature, David Toscano, written at Slate.

Conservatives have railed for years against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, criticizing localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration policies they deem heartless and ineffective. In the past year, however, some conservative lawmakers have taken a page from the progressive playbook, employing sanctuary imagery in opposition to gun safety legislation they deem to be an unconstitutional restriction of their rights under the Second Amendment.

The two approaches are classic cases of false equivalency. Jurisdictions that proclaim themselves sanctuaries for immigrants do not seek to violate the law; they simply refuse to engage local law enforcement in supporting actions that are federal responsibilities. They do not block the law, but simply insist that it should be enforced by those who have the responsibility to do so. For some proponents of so-called gun sanctuaries, however, the goal is to prevent enforcement of state law that the jurisdiction (not a court) deems unconstitutional.

Oh.  Is that the way it works?  Well then.  I guess Reuters is wrong to point out that “Sanctuary cities are those where local officials decline to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.”  Yes, in fact, that’s exactly what an illegal alien sanctuary city is.

Professor Schragger, a little digging shows, absolutely hates preemption (this link also works).  You see, he wants cities and towns to be able to levy taxes, impose regulations and do all sorts of things not granted authority by the state.  He calls preemption an “an attack on American cities.”  As long as the tilt is towards more and more regulation, he’s okay with it all.  If cities seek to ignore state law, he’s not.

So by attempting to pose a quick defeater argument for the equivalence between illegal alien sanctuary cities and 2A cities and counties, both authors have introduced more problems to deal with.  The most significant illegal alien sanctuary city case Trump has won merely allowed the FedGov to “give preferential treatment in awarding community policing grants to cities that cooperate with immigration authorities.”  That’s it.  That’s the sum total of the judicial victory.

So what Toscano and Schragger have done is pose a defeater, and hope that you didn’t dig to find the details enough to see that their argument fails, and does so miserably.  Their attempt at defeating the “false equivalence” ends up showing the similarity, and yet they still dislike state attempts at preemption on illegal alien sanctuaries, and like it for 2A sanctuaries.

They’ve done nothing more than restate their own axiomatic irreducibles, or presuppositions.  They both bias towards so-called progressive views, while denying the right of others to invoke those same tools for their own uses.  But the law is the result of these philosophic pre-commitments, not the source of them.  Philosophic pre-commitments come first, not last.  The law comes last, not first.

We do the very same thing, recognizing that our own pre-commitments are not theirs.  The fundamental divide has nothing to do with the law, per se.  It has to do with the polarization of America, which not just continues unabated, but is accelerating.  We dislike preemption when it comes to preservation of our 2A rights, and like it when it comes to illegal alien sanctuary cities.  These views have to do with preservation of certain God-given rights, tendency in the Latino voters to undermine those rights, and other issues too involved to fisk at the moment.

Again, philosophic pre-commitments govern the outcome of the debate, not the law, the law being the result of the debate.  That’s why judge-shopping is so in vogue with the progressives.  Philosophic pre-commitments can change your view of everything, not least of which is how mankind should be governed.

But that doesn’t end the issues with the analysis above.  Professor Schragger has oversimplified the issue when he discusses failing to remove weapons from a citizen and that weapon being used in a crime, leading to culpability and liability by the LEO.  Does the professor think that LEOs are going to log in weapons owners, along with the respective serial numbers of all firearms, make permanent records searchable by NICS or some other means (i.e., a registry), and make them available for future use by law enforcement?  Form 4473 isn’t a registration, and firearms can be sold to others in person-to-person transfers.  Having your information on Form 4473 proves nothing concerning present ownership of a firearm.  What tool does professor Schragger think will be used for this draconian scheme of culpability?  He posits all sorts of wet dreams for controllers, but has no idea how this all functions in real time and space.

Piling problem on top of problem, professor Schragger knows, or at least he should know, that LEOs bear no responsibility whatsoever for the protection of the public.  We’ve seen that from the doctrines established in Castle Rock versus Gonzalez and Warren versus the District of Columbia.  No LEO will stand trial for failing to confiscate a weapon because of it being used later in a crime.  That’s a preposterous notion, a sophomoric pretension suitable only for scare-tactics.

As to the extent of efficacy of these ordinances and resolutions, that’s an open question and both of the authors know it.  Sheriffs may lose their nerve, individuals may not find support among neighbors, and militias may fall apart.  My bet is against this.

Sheriffs may arrest state agents for enforcing new gun control laws.  Sheriffs can be thrown out of office and new ones elected.  Militias may end up forming road blocks and preventing state agents from enforcing any new laws.  Firearms will be purchased across state lines and from person-to-person.  Existing firearms will not go away, and most assuredly will never be registered in a state registry.  The compliance rate for these kinds of laws in New York and Connecticut was virtually non-existent, and Virginia isn’t Connecticut.

What I’m certain of, however, is that state agents and politicians of Virginia have absolutely no idea what’s coming, and presume the wrong things about the people of Virginia.  Pollyanna analyses like that from professor Schragger are misleading, and a much better gauge of what this will look like is knowing the people of Virginia.

In summary, 2A ordinances and resolutions have exactly as much teeth as the people of Virginia and their willingness to oppose new laws – not one ounce more, and not one ounce less, the professor and the politician notwithstanding.