archives

gun control

This tag is associated with 271 posts

California Gov. Brown Signs 3 Gun Control Bills

(2ndAmendmendinsider.com)

California Gov. Brown signs 3 gun control bills

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed measures to end the last narrow allowances in the state for campus carry and open carry but rejected one to mandate increased security at gun stores.

Brown, a Democrat, signed AB 7, AB 424 and AB 1525 over the weekend while returning SB 464 to lawmakers, describing the last measure, aimed at ramping up security measures at gun shops across the state, as an overreach.

“State law already requires that firearms dealers enact security measures to avoid theft,” said Brown in his veto message. “Local jurisdictions can — and have — gone further by adding specific requirements. I believe local authorities are in the best situation to determine if any additional measures are needed in their jurisdictions.”

The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, argued the increase in security was needed following incidents where burglars used cars to smash into gun stores across the state. The measure would have required gun stores to keep their firearms in a secure facility with steel bars on windows, deadbolted doors or metal grates over entrances, and an alarm system protecting ventilation in addition to installing exterior features such as concrete bollards.

Read More

I’m so glad I live in the Free State of Arizona!

Advertisements

Paul The Pooh and The Blustery Day

This came across my email a couple of days ago.

The point is, does it have some teeth, or it is just BLUSTER?

(from Gun Owners of America, in part)


Don’t Let Ryan Get Away with Any 2A Infringements!

Dear Guffaw,

This is becoming painful to watch.

House Speaker Paul Ryan is now asking — begging, really — the Trump administration to unilaterally impose gun control restrictions.

And there is virtually no conceivable way that these restrictions will fall short of eventually regulating or banning your detachable magazines.

“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix,” Ryan said.

What was he talking about?

The Hill explains:

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday the Trump administration should move quickly to ban a device used in the Las Vegas mass shooting that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly.

So Speaker Ryan is urging the ATF to ban bump stocks — even while he has indefinitely pushed back the pro-gun agenda.

But there are two major problems with this.

First, there is no way that Congress — or the administration — will be able to ban or regulate bump stocks without also opening the door to prohibitions on other parts, accessories and magazines.

This is because all of the legislative proposals currently on the table would ban ANY item or device that helps “accelerate the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm.

Using that standard, you can kiss your detachable magazines goodbye!

But the other problem is this:  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from imposing ANY infringements upon our gun rights.

If the Trump administration starts supporting infringements — even if they are so-called minor ones — it will weaken their ability and resolve to oppose the next set of infringements that come down the pike.


Help GOA stay on the frontlines. Every dollar you contribute to GOA right now will be automatically doubled, thanks to a very generous GOA Life Member!


Take Action and Put the Heat on Congress!

Please contact Your Representative and communicate the following:

1. Uphold your oath of office.  Do not support ANY infringements upon the Second Amendment — including those that would jeopardize detachable magazines.

2. Tell Speaker Paul Ryan to STOP compromising.  If legislators want to follow Ryan off a political cliff, they will truly regret it when voters “remember in November.”

We need to let Ryan know that millions of gun owners oppose his compromises, which will endanger our ability to own detachable magazines.

Plus, he needs to know that there will be SERIOUS ramifications at the polls if he and other Republicans do not stand up for our Second Amendment rights.

We are in a political war to preserve our gun rights.

I want to thank you for your help in putting the heat on your legislators.

So please take action, and urge your family and friends to do so, as well.

My apologies – having some issues here at home, I’ve not been as diligent as I have in the past regarding the fall-De-rall as I usually am regarding the silliness on the Hill.

And while I do support and respect Gun Owners of America, sometimes they get over excited in the name of financial support (learning from the NRA?)

So, what do you guys thing?  Bluster or real danger?

 

Two Days @ The Hospital…

As previously recounted in these pages, I was recently hospitalized for two separate visits.  The first time for kidney and blood ailments; the second for a further analysis of these ailments, resulting in a diagnosis of lymphoma.

Whoopee.

As it was the same hospital, the intake both times was similar.  Entry through the ER, admittance, followed by a number of uncomfortable days and tests.

During the first day, I was given what I was told was a standard questionnaire.   Questions asked and answered.  Questions like:  Do I wish my Life would end?  Do I sometimes with I’d go to sleep and not wake up?

With the additional:  Did I bring any weapons or drugs into the hospital?  (They do have the standard useless sign prohibiting weapons upon entry.)

As I knew my personal items would be unsecured much of the time, I opted to go unarmed.

During the second admittance, no such questionnaire was offered on day one.

On Day Two, however…

A genial nurse brought the questions to my room.  Do I want to kill myself, yatta, yatta, yatta.  I could answer these in my sleep.

Then came the weapon and drug questions.  No and No.

Then the nurse said, “NOW WE HAVE TO SEARCH YOUR CLOTHES!”

WAIT, WHAT?

I asked her for her warrant.  She said she didn’t have any, just like the airport.  I said exactly.  She, of course, didn’t understand my point.

After a long, angry standoff, she agreed to have me search my own clothes while she observed.  (She obviously had no idea how to do a search.)  I could have had two sidearms and kept them hidden from her!

I told her about my previous questionnaire, and no subsequent search.  She said those folks would get in serious trouble for not searching me.  Apparently, there have been problems with guns (and drugs)!

My search of my own clothes showed nothing.

I oft wondered if she did find weaponry, what was her next move?

And was such a search actionable…

UN Gun Ban Is Far From Dead

 

 

 

 

Dear Guffaw,

My jaw hit the floor when I heard the news.

Coming directly from the U.N.’s own website, I was furious to find out that the second largest direct funder of their global gun ban is American taxpayers like you and me.

Figures going back to the Obama administration show hundreds of thousands of dollars coming from our own government towards promoting the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

And sadly, those funds haven’t slowed down since President Trump has taken office.

Could it just be oversight? Or could it be entrenched holdovers from the Obama administration willfully blocking President Trump from knowing this is going on?

Either way, it is unacceptable that we are continuing to fund this global gun ban.

If fully implemented in the United States, our Second Amendment would be put on life support, and it would take years to undo the damage.

That’s why I’m counting on you to support the National Association for Gun Rights’ “Defund the UN Gun Ban Ad Blitz.”

Their goal is to raise $125,000 by Thursday, September 28th.

With those funds, they are going to run an ad blitz designed to get the attention of President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Everything from mail and email, to state-of-the-art online programs designed to identify and mobilize Second Amendment supporters, will be utilized.

But a program like this will cost a lot of money, and that’s why I’m emailing you today.

I really don’t know what you can afford, but I’m hoping you help out my good friends at the National Association for Gun Rights by digging deep to help fund their vital program.

Perhaps once I explain why this is such an important cause, you’ll even consider giving $75.

You see, the anti-gun global elites are breathing a sigh of relief.

Even with their anti-gun cheerleader Hillary Clinton not in the presidency, they are able to keep their yearly check courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer — which they are using to work towards global implementation of the Treaty.

In fact, the anti-gun global elites just got back from a posh set of meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, where they schemed about ways to implement their anti-gun agenda world-wide.

They know that as long as U.S. money keeps flooding in and our signature stays intact they will have their way eventually.

And even if implementation isn’t possible under President Trump, they are fully prepared to wait for someone like (God forbid) Senator Elizabeth Warren to take over the White House.

In the meantime, they can get by on the hundreds of thousands in U.S. funds they will accumulate by then.

And one important way to slow them down is immediately cutting off our funds to the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

Frankly, I think President Trump would be wise to cut off a lot, maybe even all, funding to the United Nations given its long history of anti-American activity . . . but that’s a subject for another day.

Today, I hope you will stand with me in at least cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N.’s global gun ban scheme.

So please click here and chip in to help the National Association for Gun Rights raise $125,000 for their Ad Blitz by this Thursday.

After reading through the details of the Treaty, it’s hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault.

Perhaps the worst of the Treaty’s provisions can be found in Article V, which mandates countries establish a “National Control List” — or a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!

You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.

And the U.N. is already plotting their next step — developing new “International Small Arms Control Standards” (ISACS).

Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.” Introductory language already includes:

*** Mandated national “screening” for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you’re “competent” enough to own a gun;

*** Restrictive licensing for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!

*** Restrictions on the number of guns and amount of ammo any “properly-licensed” individual may legally own;

*** Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;

*** Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense — unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.

And with U.S. funding continuing to support this treaty, the global anti-gun elites are convinced that the U.S. will come on board with full implementation.

As one anti-gun world leader stated:

“[W]e expect the U.S. to abide by the Treaty even if ratification will take some time.”

That’s why the immediate defunding of this treaty is so important, and why I asked you to make such a generous contribution.

So please click here and make a generous contribution of $75 to NAGR’s “Defund the U.N. Gun Ban Ad Blitz” right away!

But if $75 is just too much for you at this time, I understand. The only reason I am asking for so much is because I know first-hand, as a U.S. Senator, just how effective the National Association for Gun Rights is.

Every cent they receive goes directly towards protecting and restoring the Second Amendment in our great country.

So please consider digging deep, whether that be giving $75, $50, or $25 it will be much appreciated, and will make a huge difference.

Whatever you give, I would just like to thank you for your dedication to liberty, and the Second Amendment.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United Stated Senator (R-KY)

P.S. I was shocked and angered to find out that the United Nation’s “Small Arms Treaty” is largely funded by U.S. tax payers like you and me.

That’s more than every country in the world with the exception of Japan.

That’s why I’m hoping I can count on you to make a generous contribution of $75, $50, or $25 to NAGR’s “Defund the U.N. Gun Ban Ad Blitz” by their Thursday deadline.

Yeah, here we go again.
I don’t want the U.N. Gun Ban but I’ve no funds.
I figured I could at least at least put this out there as another last-ditch effort!
Come and get them!

 

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

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?

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…