archives

gun control

This category contains 288 posts

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense

(from NRA-ILA)

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense

 

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of “Pencils” and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense
It is refreshing to finally see some common sense coming out of a court in NJ, as the state is notoriously known for its illogical and Draconian gun laws that do little more than make felons out of law-abiding gun owners.

MORE

Advertisements

The Large Magazine Debate: How Much is Too Much?

The debate on restricting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than ten cartridges has been going on since the first mass shooting. The fact that the magazines have been available to the public for many years prior brings the question of “Why worry about it now?”

Neither conservatives nor liberals can deny that the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own firearms. The question is, “how much is too much?”

There’s no real answer due to the fact that limiting one aspect of the 2nd Amendment can cause other aspects to be limited as well.

Mass Shootings

Almost every mass shooter in history has used large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in their attacks on unsuspecting citizens. While many claim that reducing the number of rounds they can fire in a second or two would save lives, others can also claim that if teachers were allowed to be armed it wouldn’t matter how many rounds the shooters had available.

Is the Size of the Magazine Really That Important?

The main debate revolves limiting magazines that carry ten rounds or more. Legislators seem to miss the fact that it’s the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon. If the person is intent on harming others, they will find a way to do it whether they have a ten round clip or a 100-round magazine.

The debate will continue to go on as long as there are people in society who have different points of view. The answer may be in the opposite direction, however. Instead of limiting the rights of the people who can use weapons effectively, let’s keep the weapons and their accessories out of the hands of those who misuse them.

~ Firearm Daily

While I don’t thing this was written by a knowledgeable firearm owner, it does make some points for conversation.

As for my .02, I strongly believe in the nose-under the tent,  If we allow magazine size, then it’s number of magazine carried, or total rounds carried.  Or weight of weapons.  Or permissible calibers…

This is not about GUN CONTROL.

It’s about CONTROL!

 

What State Law?

( from NRA-ILA)

 

This week (September 8), the city of Tucson, Arizona agreed to repeal their firearm destruction ordinance. This decision came in response to the recent state Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s firearm destruction policy as a violation of state law that prohibits local governments from regulating the ownership, licensing, or use of firearms.
The city of Tucson ignored this Arizona state law 12 years ago when the Tucson city council passed an ordinance allowing for the destruction of firearms. Last month, the state Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as violation of state law, and in its ruling specifically acknowledged the NRA’s amicus filing by adopting its argument “that preserving the right to bear arms under the federal and state constitutions is also a subject of state concern.”
“We applaud the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Firearms should not be summarily destroyed by local governments.”
Chris Cox issued a statement thanking the Arizona Attorney General for his efforts in assisting Arizona’s law-abiding gun owners.
“On behalf of the NRA’s five-million members, I want to thank Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for his defense of Arizona’s firearm preemption law,” concluded Cox. “This decision sets an important precedent to protect Arizonans’ firearms freedoms from future infringement by local ordinances.”

About time!

Washington D.C. Reaffirms its Rejection of Right-to-Carry

(from NRA-ILA, in part)

In an unsurprising turn, officials in the District of Columbia have decided to continue to defend their near total ban on the right to bear arms.  On Thursday (published August 25), D.C. filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the combined cases of Grace v. D.C. and Wrenn v. D.C.  As we reported last month, the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s restrictive handgun permitting law that required applicants to show a “good” or “proper” reason for needing to carry a concealed handgun.  Under this system, D.C. officials have denied all but a few applicants their right to carry a firearm for personal protection.
Georgia Law Enforcement Looking Into Gun Turn-in Operation

 

Governor in U.S. Virgin Islands Orders Gun & Ammo Confiscation

(from Liberty Headlines)

(WND) A hurricane is on the way, and preparations always include boarding up windows, stocking up on food, water and batteries, and sometimes fleeing inland.
A governor in one U.S. territory, however, has another plan: Grab all the guns.
According to the Daily Caller, the governor of the Virgin Islands, a U.S. territory, has signed an order to that effect.

The order explains that Gov. Kenneth E. Mapp authorized the territory’s adjutant general “to mobilize such units of the National Guard as are necessary to maintain or restore public order, and to guarantee the safety of life and property,” as Hurricane Irma approaches from the Atlantic.

The adjutant general, he said, “is authorized and directed to seize arms, ammunition, explosives, incendiary material and any other property that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission, in accordance with the Rules of Force promulgated by the Virgin Islands National Guard and approved by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice.”

Irma was reported on Tuesday to be a Category 5 hurricane, with winds up to 175 miles her hour, and the eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the islands on Wednesday.
The Daily Caller said Mapp signed the order Monday.
He warned, “This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane.

“It’s not time to get on a surfboard,” he continued.

The gun seizure order technically also allows authorities to take control of “any other property.”

Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselo and Florida Gov. Rick Scott also declared states of emergencies in anticipation of Irma. But they did not include the gun confiscation authorization.

Mapp wrote that the order was issued under authority of Title 23, Chapter 19, Virgin Islands Code, and insisted it is necessary “to maintain the health, welfare, and safety of the people of the Virgin Islands.”

The adjutant general is given the right to “take whatever actions she considers necessary to carry out the assigned missions.”

The order provides for “payment for salaries, benefits, health insurance, worker’s compensation, necessary meals, fuel and other operational and administrative costs.”

But there was no mention of compensation to gun owners.

DON’T THESE CLOWNS REMEMBER KATRINA AND THE RESULT OF ILLEGAL GUN CONFISCATION THERE?

Oregon Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

(from americangunnews.com)

A new Oregon gun control law was recently passed by the governor in an attempt to establish Extreme Risk Protection orders. The governor, who signed the bill with no comment remarked previously that the new law was the, “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”
Unfortunately, the law is a far cry from being protective of individual gun owners’ rights as it allows police to confiscate a valid owner’s firearm without providing them with their day in court before the confiscation occurs. While those affected by the law would have a right to be heard in court, the owner would not be able to appeal their rights in court until after they have been revoked.
In essence, the law is multi-faceted allowing police officers to confiscate a gun owner’s weapon if the police, a family member, or close friend reports that they pose a risk to themselves or others. Once the order is established by the court, the individual will be prevented from buying firearms or ammunition for the duration of a year, and the police will have the right to seize the owner’s weapons or require them to be stored with a gun dealer for the duration of the order.
While this new law was created to reduce the risk of firearm related suicides that has been on the rise in recent years, it is doing it at the expense of law-abiding citizen’s rights and requires them to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. This situation could cause many well-meaning family members and friends to have their loved one’s rights stripped from them for something that may be no more than an unfounded concern or an attempt at revenge.
In the United States, a citizen has the right to due process, which requires that a person is informed of the crime they are being charged with as well as the rights they are entitled to during the criminal process. After they are informed, they may be temporarily detained until they are seen by a judge. The proceedings will then proceed to trial and a sentencing phase if convicted, but during this entire process, a citizen’s rights may not be limited until they are convicted and sentenced in a court of law.
The new Oregon law SB 719A will have citizens subject to the restriction of rights based on suspicion or presumption. It is then their responsibility if they want those rights back to schedule a hearing and prove they deserve them, in essence violating some of the most important laws that established the founding of this country.
In addition to the fact that the law will allow citizens to be stripped of their 2nd amendment right to bear arms before they are granted the right to due process, it will also put the determination of one’s mental state and intention in the hands of people that are not qualified in the mental health field or even have the tools to make a valid determination on one’s mental health. Quite simply we have mental health professional make these types of assessments because they are the ones who are properly trained to do so.
The new law also provides gun restriction requirements for those who have had a restraining order filed against them by a significant other as well as allowing the indefinite delay of gun sales to be completed. The previous law gave the state three days to determine whether or not a gun purchase could go through. With the new law, this period could be extended indefinitely, which in effect will inhibit a citizen’s right to obtain personal protection.
While the intentions of the new gun confiscation law in Oregon may have started with good intentions, to achieve the desired results, the state is allowing law-abiding citizens to be stripped of their rights without due process and proper assessment. The new law will end up having more citizen’s in court explaining why they deserve their rights instead of the court system fighting to protect the rights of their citizens.

Whatever happened to DUE PROCESS?

Of course, Oregon is rapidly becoming California North.  And Washington isn’t far behind.  Seems the pioneer spirit that brought folks westerly stopped at Idaho, Utah and Arizona.

This seems to be prevalent on both coasts.

Seawater pollution?

Is Trump Causing a Slowdown in Gun Sales?

Politics works in mysterious ways. The more firearm regulations former President Obama tried to push through Congress, the higher gun sales became. Obama himself was lampooned as “the best gun salesman on the planet” by some industry insiders.
Obviously, the threat of overbearing regulation has faded in the era of the Trump administration. While one may think that a loosening of the reins would encourage more gun sales, the exact opposite has occurred. Gun stocks are down, and so are profits.
What is the explanation?
For all of his bluster, Obama was actually able to do very little about regulating firearms during his time in office. Yes, he was successful in bolstering the amount of total background checks processed. However, the Congress blocked all of his traditional legislation on the issue, and his Executive Orders addressing the topic have been all but completely overturned.
As it turns out, Americans were buying more guns on the threat of gun regulation rather than on any actual policy. Because Americans thought that certain types of rifles and add-ons such as sidearm silencers would soon be difficult or impossible to get, they stocked up. With Trump, there is no talk of gun regulation. Second Amendment rights advocates are no longer in a frenzy thinking that gun rights will disappear in the near future, so the new additions to the cache can wait.
The second factor that may account for a drop in gun sales is a level of satiety in the market. When Americans stocked up on guns during Obama’s term, they really stocked up. Contrary to popular belief, the modern American under Trump believes that they have enough guns – for now.
The Trump slump is a serious issue for the firearms industry. Mid America Armament gun show sales have dropped 50%, with total sales down about 25% from Obama administration years. The former Smith & Wesson, now known as the American Outdoor Brands Corporation, had its stock price drop significantly on election day. Sturm Ruger faced similar losses in its stock price.
Financial analysts predicted firearm sales would take a hit as far back as November. Learn why in the video below.
~ Firearm Daily

“When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!”  (from a 1920’s Naval Academy magazine)

We political gun folks seem to become apoplectic when those in power even suggest possible gun control legislation.  But we become complacent when the people in power seem to support gun rights.

Not so fast, there, Bucko!  Historically, there have been a number or Republicans (Conservatives?) in power who signed in legislation which was antithetical to the Constitution, and that which is near-and-dear to us.

Tried to buy a newly-made European machine gun lately?

We must remain vigilant and (if we are able) support the marketplace.

Lest more of our rights whither or be taken away!

How Google and other Tech Companies are Working to Turn People Against the 2nd Amendment

(from American Gun News, in part)

Google and other companies in the Silicon Valley are no longer content to simply donate as much spare cash as possible to anti-gun candidates for federal office. The tech moguls in the bluest of blue districts in the United States have chosen a side in the culture wars and are taking direct aim at the 2nd Amendment. Here is how Google and other tech giants are actively working to turn people against your gun rights.

Google
eBay was the first tech giant to ban firearms sales from its platform, but Google was not far behind. This should come as no surprise considering the eight-year game of “musical chairs” between Google and the notoriously anti-Second Amendment Obama administration. A staggering 258 executives and government employees rotated jobs through the revolving door between the Obama White House and Google between 2009 and 2016. At the end of Barack Obama’s first term, Google suddenly banned the sale of firearms from its shopping platform, declaring guns and ammo to not be “family safe.” Not family safe? That bigoted statement alone has the power to shape public perception about firearms.
Then consider the creepy report from the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in 2015. Researchers discovered that Google’s search algorithm can manipulate 20 percent or more of undecided voters to switch their votes!
Robert Epstein, the senior research psychologist on the study, told Politico that Google has the ability to “control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs … [more] than any company in history has ever had.” If Google can trick people into switching their voting preferences, it’s easy to see that it could be doing the same thing with opinions on gun rights.

Facebook
This social media giant has been moving toward becoming an online shopping platform more and more in recent years, but in 2016 Facebook suddenly began treating gun owners as pariahs. To this day, Facebook refuses to say how many gun enthusiast pages it took down in a massive purge when it rolled out a new policy to ban the private sales of firearms — which are legal in most states.
Facebook has assigned a liaison to help bring gun enthusiast pages into compliance with its policy, but many gun owners simply abandoned the platform and went elsewhere, according to Forbes. This is just another instance of a giant Silicon Valley company treating gun owners as second-class citizens, with a separate set of rules and regulations that other retailers do not have to abide by. This is compounded by anti-gun activists poring over Facebook posts and flagging anything related to guns as “offensive” until Facebook takes the post or a user’s entire page down.

Shadowbanning
Insiders at Twitter admitted in 2016 that the company has been shadowbanning the tweets of prominent conservatives, including many Second Amendment patriots. A “shadowban” is simply a form of censorship in which the tech giant that censors you never tells you that you’ve been censored. You can still tweet a picture of that new sidearm you purchased, but none of your friends or family members will ever see it because it was shadowbanned. Many Facebook users have reported that their posts have been shadowbanned as well.

Payment Platforms
Online services PayPal, Stripe and Square have all banned gun stores from using their platforms for business. Never mind that these are lawful businesses operated by federal firearms license holders who conduct background checks before all sales.

Gladwin Guns and Ammo in Merced, CA filed a lawsuit against the three Silicon Valley money transfer services in June of 2017. Owner Blair Gladwin told the Merced Sun-Times, “They flat-out shut me down. My livelihood is on the line, because my revenue is going to drop.” 2nd Amendment enthusiasts will want to keep an eye on this case, because it could have a nationwide impact on whether lawful gun stores are allowed to use the same services as most other businesses.

Conclusion
Google and other tech giants are sending gun owners, gun shops and people who simply support gun rights to the “back of the bus” in 2017. Constant discrimination like this against gun owners does have an impact on public perception and this is a problem that all gun owners should be concerned with — especially knowing the tremendous power that the Silicon Valley wields with its vast troves of data on Americans.

This should be of no surprise, as Northern California (and California in general) is a bastion of liberal political thought.  It is surprising that Amazon (farther North in Washington State), while not selling firearms, does allow sale of  accessories, stocks, lubricants and novelty items (a chocolate Glock?).

The problem is, unless we ‘protest’ these entities by going off the grid (no cellular telephones, tablets, payment platforms or social networking, or using their services), they will continue to make huge dollars unabated.  And continue to ‘control’ the masses.

Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians

(from NRA/ILA)

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.
The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states – including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.
Ask Your Representative to support the Second Amendment Guarantee Act
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.
TAKE ACTION TODAY
Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns – by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime – were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.
Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.
Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.
The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.
The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

IT’S ABOUT TIME!

Where were bills like this when the various ‘assault weapon bans’ were introduced?  Of course, the political climate has changed.

Let’s support bills like this before the pendulum swings back again the other way!

The truly sad part is if State and federal legislators truly followed their oaths, none of this would be necessary.

A Scarlet Letter For Gun Owners!

(from Gun Talk Media – SAF)

A Scarlet Letter for Gun Owners

Imagine being a grandfather seeking custody of his grandson. The state says that will be okay, but you’ll have to give us the serial numbers of all your guns. A caseworker says, “If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.”

You appeal to a court of law, and the judge says, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”

That’s what happened in Michigan, and it is why the Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit against that state’s Department of Health and Human Services. The state prohibits foster parents and adoptive parents from having guns — a clear violation of constitutional rights — fully acknowledged by the judge. (Hear from attorney David Sigale this Sunday on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio!)

This kind of branding gun owners as less desirable is part of a larger pattern, where zoning laws treat gun stores as though they were sex shops, and won’t allow them near schools. Responsible gun owners and shooters are treated, by law, in ways that other identifiable groups would never stand for. Get a permit for free speech? Have financial services denied through a government program (Operation Choke Point)? Be required to be photographed, fingerprinted, and have a mandatory background check to exercise what clearly is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

We simply must challenge every single one of these blatant discriminatory laws and practices, and it takes all of us. It takes the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, state groups, and individuals — you and me. It’s why I created the Gun Talk Truth Squad more than a decade ago — so we can challenge each one of these. So we WILL challenge every media slight, smear, and lie. Every. Single. Time.

A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth.

~Tom

 

Tom Gresham
Author, outdoorsman, gun rights activist, and firearms enthusiast for more than five decades, Tom Gresham hosts Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk, the first nationally-syndicated radio show about guns and the shooting sports, and is also the producer and co-host of the Guns & Gear, GunVenture and First Person Defender television series.

This kind of unconstitutional BS really torques my jaw!

We have won many battles, but have not yet won the war.  We must continue to be vigilant.

 

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…