Watch the entire video. First of all, Stephen is and friend and one of the best second amendment attorneys out there so we should show him some support. Through GOA and his own firm he has shown resilience and class in dealing with the FedGov, and has achieved a good degree of success in his cases.
Second, after this video, you might be interested in the second one. A defining and signal characteristic of communist societies is that they hire incompetents and promote the lazy. Communism isn’t just for the central bureaucracy. It’s for the distributed bureaucracies too.
As long as you’re incompetent but support the status quo, as long as you don’t rock the rulers’ boat, and as long as you make income for the elitists, you’re welcome in the bureaucracy administrating a lack of justice to the peasants. If you work for the government, you might be a peasant too, but you’re their peasant.
Stephen is a prime example. He’s a good and hard working attorney. He could never work for the FedGov and be happy.
“I admired Wayne LaPierre 20-30 years ago,” a comment left on The Captain’s Journal, a blog I frequent admitted. “Yes, he screwed up and started living high off the hog on the members’ dime… But there were some great victories… during his tenure, particularly the proliferation of shall-issue CCW and constitutional carry…That was all grassroots NRA lobbying.”
“Yes, they were wrong for supporting NICS and some other things, but I think it is unfair to tag Wayne’s tenure with some of the Fudd [stuff] the NRA supported in the past, like the NFA,” the poster continued. “The NRA once had the loyalty of a LOT of Democratic members and Democratic politicians… The NRA now has ZERO influence in places like New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts… Wayne deserves to be held accountable… by the Board of Directors and the members, not by Letitia James or any… so-called court of ‘law.’”
Such sentiment is not unique among gun owners. Unfortunately, it’s also not correct.
Gun control groups had gotten most of what they’d wanted. That wasn’t surprising. They had actively participated in drafting legislation and worked directly with senior bureaucrats. Allan Rock’s policy advisor called their contributions “very instrumental.” In 1995 Heidi Rathjen of gun control group PolySeSouvient said, in response to Pierrette Venne’s question about what the group would do if Bill C-68 came into effect, that “…if [Bill C-68] is passed as it was tabled, without major amendment, then, as far as we are concerned, after what we’ve presented today, we will no longer fight for a federal legislation.” No major amendments were made. In 2015 she essentially re-endorsed their 1995 position, and blamed their continued activism on Harper-era tweaks and the post-1995 invention of “new” “assault weapons” — though many of the “assault weapons” her group wanted banned were on the market decades prior to C-68, were not prohibited by it, and remained legal until 2020.
C-68 was touted as the “end of the struggle to strengthen gun control in Canada.” While some advocates pledged to continue a push for a total ban on the remaining murkily-defined “military assault weapons,” the compromise was set. Subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments accepted the core philosophy and most core elements. The 2004 Conservative manifesto retained all of the central components except for the controversial, expensive, and ineffective registration of hunting guns, a position eventually supported by Trudeau the Younger.
Gun-control groups used to be realistic about the scope of their goals and the Canadian way of life. They acknowledged hunting and sporting use, the importance of having “a supply of ammunition in the home” for predator defence in rural areas, and maintained that the Chief Firearms Officers should have discretion over license issuances or revocations when a person has been rehabilitated, a policy which C-21 would abolish. They didn’t even push for a total ban on handguns. In turn many gun owners came to see licensing as a point of pride. They saw it as a badge of honour indicating they belonged to the safest and most trusted citizens, clearly set apart from the criminal class and even safer than the general public.
[ … ]
These groups consider removing firearms from society an unalloyed good, yet consumer demand shows plenty see it differently. There are 2,300,000 licensed gun owners in Canada who rely on firearms for needs as diverse as agriculture, sport, wilderness protection, trapping, investment, heritage and hunting. Fifty thousand jobs and billions in GDP rely on them. Loss of livelihood is bad enough, but we also cannot ignore the loss of life that economic harm entails or that every dollar we spend or lose here could be spent on a nurse we do not employ, a soldier without proper equipment, or a diversion program for an at-risk youth.
For fun, I once roughly estimated the building costs for central storage units using comparable public contracts. It came to just over $600 million, before any operational costs. Six hundred million bucks is a lot of money in any scenario, but here’s the kicker: that’s for only 20,000 guns, in just the Northwest Territories. Where guns are critical to food security. Canada has about 12.5 million firearms. There’s a reason almost no serious comparator uses central storage, even in far smaller countries.
No one, especially the central government, is going to foot the bill for central storage of firearms, and especially not locked down and manning those storage locations with guards and stewards.
Rather, the goal is just to make all firearms illegal. His work to compute the cost was a waste of time.
Notice how proud gun owners were of their licensure – and notice how earnestly and honestly gun owners negotiated the new laws. But there will never be “end of the struggle to strengthen gun control in Canada.” Governments don’t care one whit about “sporting” applications of firearms. They are trying to protect and ensure the survival of government, of the elitists, of the rulers, not a way of life or the ability to defend home and hearth. That’s why self defense with a firearm in Canada is illegal.
Negotiation and compromise is the road to hell. Just don’t do it. Ever.
If someone had asked me to make observations about this issue, I would have said “No one can credibly argue that teachers shouldn’t be armed,” or “No one can credibly argue that schools need multiple, unlocked points of ingress,” or “No one can credibly argue that cops have the right to, under the color of law, prevent honorable and brace men from entering a premises to save their child.”
There are so many intelligent things to say. These are only a few of them. However, Jennifer Mascia is somehow able to find the most idiotic thing to say.
Florida House Speaker Paul Renner is shooting down any hopes of Florida becoming an open-carry state, at least for now.
During last Thursday’s remarks to reporters, Renner said while he supports the idea of open carry, it would be unlikely to see a law get passed this year.
“I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment across the board in many aspects,” said Renner. “There’s not an appetite in both chambers to get that done.”
Renner’s comments come after Rep. Mike Beltran, R-Riverview, filed legislation to make changes to the state’s current gun laws, including allowing people to openly carry firearms on college campuses.
“We always have to measure whether it’s worth the committee [and] House floor time to pass a bill that would be controversial that would take a lot of time, that we know is dead on arrival.”
The bill(HB 1619), would also allow guns to be carried in certain government buildings and at voting polls. The proposal comes just a year after the state made it legal for most Floridians to carry guns without a permit, as long as it’s concealed.
It was the first bill submitted when they came back into session. They had plenty of time to work on it. What a bunch of pusillanimous cowards and spiritless, lying scoundrels.
Cops are against it, and that would be enough for the bootlickers to stop the bill, but they enacted gun control in the wake of the Parkland shooting and they won’t reverse course now. They would be seen as the duplicitous punks they are. So along with NY, Hawaii, California and Illinois, the communists in Florida (you know, the “law and order conservatives”) have left it all in place and don’t even mind telling you they don’t care about it immediately after the bill was filed.
I had previously told you that I had as much use for the fourth circuit as I do for the muck between my toes.
And just to be clear, there is no reason at all for the supreme court to wait to hear a case like this since it’s going on all over the country now. As I said before, they’re running from it like little girls. Or maybe they want to do the bidding of the communists and wait for the makeup of the supreme court to change. To accomplish that, they would need the help of the two supposedly constitutional women on the court – Barrett and Roberts.
MASSIVE 2A VICTORY JUST NOW: CALIFORNIA'S "SENSITIVE PLACE" LAWS KNOCKED OUT BY NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed the preliminary injunction entered by US District Court Judge Cormac Carney to go into effect. Thus, a long list of…
— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) January 7, 2024
🚨 FPC WIN 🚨
The 9th Circuit has dissolved the administrative stay in our Carralero v. Bonta California Public Carry Bans Lawsuit and DENIED CA’s Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal.
This means all public carry bans blocked by our District Court injunction are blocked again. pic.twitter.com/NJDokAdPmP
A federal judge is allowing a challenge to New York’s assault weapons ban to proceed after he denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Thursday.
Two people supported by gun rights advocacy groups sued New York officials in December 2022 over the state’s ban on assault weapons, saying the law was “infringing the right of law-abiding, peaceable citizens to keep and bear commonly possessed firearms for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes.” U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas sided with the individuals bringing the lawsuit in a ruling released Thursday, denying state officials’ motion to dismiss the case.
Attorneys for New York officials filed a motion in the Southern District of New York to dismiss the complaint in May, arguing that the court does not have the jurisdiction to address the plaintiffs’ claims. The state officials’ legal team said the individuals “fail to establish that any injury-in-fact is traceable to the assault weapons ban” because they do not say they hold a license required to buy a semiautomatic rifle.
Karas dismissed the defendants’ arguments in the ruling.
“While there may be serious questions about Plaintiffs’ exemption argument, the Court need not address that question here because Plaintiffs adequately allege standing under Defendants’ interpretation of the statute,” Karas wrote.
“Put simply, Defendants have failed to explain how invalidating the Assault Weapons Ban would have no effect on the ability to obtain licenses for those same weapons,” Karas added later in the ruling.
These are the games that awful men like these lawyers play. The plaintiffs lack standing because they aren’t in prison for owning an AR-15 in New York. They need to buy an AR-15, and in order to do that they need a permit from us. But we aren’t granting permits to own or buy an AR-15. So there. Stuff it.
Fortunately this judge dismissed such gaming of the system.
The administration hates Americans (or at least, the ones who are currently Americans). The elitists in New York hates its people. The most recent school shooting has as its motive the same one as the Nashville shooting.
But they still claim it’s mental illness. How about this? It’s due to wickedness.
The moms in Nashville still want the elitists in Tennessee to infringe on the 2A. I was wondering if these moms, who are part of a school funded by the PCA, also attend or are members of that same PCA church. If so, I’d know who to blame for thinking that a piece of metal can cause the heart of man to be wicked. The pastor should have done a better job of teaching.
Those poor folks just take in on the chin, yes? I’ve exchanged email with the president of the Hawaii rifle and pistol club. Nice guy. I’m sorry for this, but after all, it is a communist state superintended by a communist Ninth Circuit.
Note the horns of a dilemma they impale the supposedly free men on: You can’t have our permission without an approved instructor, and we don’t approve any instructors.
A friend responds, would be great if someone enforced the laws on the books, huh?
18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights)
18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law)
A federal judge in Massachusetts shut down an attempt to block the state’s assault weapons ban Friday, arguing that the law does not break with recent Supreme Court precedent that has severely shaken gun control legislation.
District Judge Dennis Saylor said the state ban keeps with “historical tradition” of gun control regulation, after the high court ruled last year in the landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision that all gun control legislation must keep with that tradition.
“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” Saylor wrote.
The judge added that the assault weapons in question are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms.”
And that, dear folks, is all it takes to prove yourself an idiot.
Not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes. Substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms. Now, try to reconcile those two passages.
No, you can’t. Because that 30-06 or 700 Rem Mag sitting in your gun safe will do far more damage than a 5.56mm round. And there were no precedents in 1791 regulating weapons, and there is nothing unusual about AR-15s when so many tens of millions of people own them.
And you know what I see after Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen? I see the supreme court running away from this issue like cowards, especially Barrett. I don’t care whether the court wants to see a full stack of prior decisions on this issue. There is nothing more necessary to make this decision. All the facts are in and have been for decades. It could be a single paragraph long. Or even shorter.
“AR-15’s are not unusual weapons in America. Therefore, they cannot be banned.”
There, I did it for them. No muss, no fuss. It wasn’t hard. But it must be hard for them.
11 months, 1 week ago
